Big Bang Just DISPROVEN?! Joe Rogan & Stephen C. Meyer

[@DrBrianKeating]

Did the Big Bang happen? 💥

[@atlasnetwork7855]

Let's see, you've got a theory where you've got redshift that can be caused velocity. But it can also be caused by gravitational redshift, and it's looking more and more like it can be caused by plasma redshift too. Hubble's law is probably correct, and i believe if is, but the attribution of Hubble's Law to universal expansion i think is actually a bit presumptuous. We have a poor understanding of the way light behaves, especially over a huge distances, and we have a poor understanding of what's in the universe between stars. For instance, if Big Bang Proponents are to be believed then the universe is full of dark matter that we can't see and can't detect. We have the crisis in cosmology. Variable stars aren't matching CMB. That means either variable star data we don't understanding or CMB we don't understand. But the elephant in the room is *they could both be wrong.* We have stars nearly as old as the universe. We have black holes that developed in the universe far earlier than we expected. We have people claiming the universe is twice as old as accepted. We have inconsistencies in the distribution of elements in the periodic table. We have galaxies rotating at the wrong speeds. We are neither able to say where the big bang occurred, nor where the boundary of the expanding universe is, nor where we are in relation to that boundary. We have radiation from CMB that should be going away from us, coming back to us somehow. Why? Is it reflected off something travelling even faster than the speed of light? We justify some of these things by arguing that space itself is expanding. But what would that mean geometrically? What sense does it make to say a vacuum is expanding? Some people argue for the tired light hypothesis. But ether was disproved, yet we know that the universe is full of tiny particles that spontaneously appear and annihilate. Some people argue that tired light is explained by gravitational redshift and that the expansion illusion is really what stock traders would describe as "beta loss", the sequential adding and removal of a fixed % or ratio of energy to a photon until gradually over time the energy drops causing a wavelength shift. Personally, I suspect that there's a plasma redshift going on, and we have limited evidence for this happening. When the pioneer 6 spacecraft went behind the sun, as went into teh sun's occult, and the pioneer 6 spacecraft was transmitting through the sun's plasma, we saw a significant and measurable frequency shift of the transmission. This shift was not accounted for by doppler shift, and i've not seen anything to suggest that this was gravitational redshift either. There are essays being ignored from people like Dean L Mamas, and many others that at a certain average density of electrons in deep space (i think it was 32 per cubic meter - but i've not seen the paper for a while, so don't quote me on that) that you get the full spectrum shift of the entire electromagnetic wavelength that accounts for Hubble's Law without the conclusion that the universe is expanding at all. If plasma redshift is a factor in any way, shape or form then it could change the age of the universe by billions of years. Personally, what i would do, is i'd set up an experiment to determine how much of redshift is caused by speed and how much is caused by other factors. The way i'd do this is i'd use high speed sensors like we use today in lidar equipment, and i'd point it at a pulsar star, and i'd measure the time delta between the high frequencies of light and the low frequencies of light. And the nano second time delta between the upper and lower frequencies of light hitting the sensor would tell us quite a bit. It would tell us about the medium in between us and the pulsar, and if this time delta was increasing we'd know that the pulsar was receding. If it was decreasing, we'd know that it was approaching. We could compare this against the redshift of the pulsar, and apply it to surrounding stars to build up a more accurate depiction of whether the universe was expanding or not, if so at what rate, and how much of the redshift wasn't doppler shift, and we could solve the age old problem of whether tired light was actually thing. 20-30 years ago, this experiment wouldn't have been possible. But these days we lidars, and optical quantum key cryptography, and advanced gas sensing / spectroscopy hardware, we do things like this on a daily basis all day, every day. We don't need to spend trillions on particle accelerators, or looking for dark matter, we just need a simple £30,000 validation test on redshift. I'm not saying that big bang is wrong (although i think it is), what i'm saying is that if we follow Ockham's Razor, that all things being considered the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one, i'd argue that any quantum physicist will tell you "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't", and that it's far more rational to question our understanding of light over long distances than to spend billions on a wild goose chase looking for 70% of the universe being dark matter which we have absolutely no evidence for to make this theory work.

[@atlasnetwork7855]

Apologies i went on a bit of rant there. But you see where i'm coming from can't you.

[@infra-cyan]

[@PearlmanYeC]

'a' (SPIRAL) not 'The' (SCM-LCDM) Big Bang did occur. A hyper-dense start followed by a hyper cosmic expansion 'inflation' epoch. see SPIRAL on the Keating 10 point Big Bang cosmology checklist. One key is 'Pearlman vs Hubble' there is no ongoing cosmic expansion. follow, test, disseminate Pearlman YeC SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model at ResearchGate, to advance the science.

[@safehouse7074]

Yeah but I don’t say that shit cuz I think “The emergence” sounds cooler

[@xjoellmarkellx]

Oh boy.... just wait until Neil DeGrasse Tyson gets ahold of this information. He will have a major meltdown of epic proportions....

[@giosasso]

You mean the one and almighty, Mr. DeGreasy Tyson? The Big Bang theory never made sense, and it does not hold up to scrutiny. Where did the atoms come from that created the Big Bang? I thought mass cannot be created or destroyed but it can be rearranged. Maybe what scientists claim is everything, is in fact, a tiny fraction of everything and the atoms and particles that created our universe came from something else that we don't understand. Maybe we don't have a clue. Maybe we should be honest about the limits of our understanding of reality.

[@steviejd5803]

Neil is probably practicing his trumpet right now.

[@michaeldodd3563]

That’s because NDT has built his career on indoctrinating people into “believing” the Big Bang.

[@spidaman0112]

Neil is a 🦜

[@jimreaper1337]

NDT will blame racism & white supremacy as he's taken to doing lately

[@John_Falcon]

You can't disprove something that was never proven to begin with.

[@dimfuturefilms9070]

True, you can only DEBUNK 😉

[@granstaffjohn]

Great point

[@Food4Thought4Love]

Yes you can, it’s called disproving a theory dingus. If you go to court for a charge you never committed by your logic there is no way possible to prove you didn’t commit what your charged with, smh.

[@Nerdiness1985]

@@Food4Thought4Love You have no idea what theory means in science now do you? You don't tend to disprove a theory in science, since that by itself is an entire field of study. Hypothesis can be disproven.

[@Food4Thought4Love]

@@Nerdiness1985 a theory is a hypothesis that can’t be proven or disproven, if you disprove the hypothesis it is no longer a theory and is false, if you prove a hypothesis then it is fact. your fried you clearly don’t know what a theory is, you learn this in like 3rd grade

[@fubarexress6359]

One thing I hate about the "establishment" in any field is their outright refusal to accept their theories may be wrong. Science can't proceed and evolve if we desperately cling to our theories esp when evidence comes out that their not correct.

[@boxbury]

So very true, and we are also seeing it now in terms of aspects relating to Darwin’s theories but the scientific community (mostly in Western society)have built him into God like status that cannot be challenged.

[@southernfriedmedia3968]

Money is at stake, of course there will be

[@jamessmith6162]

And from what I can remember, this been the case ever since I've been alive, and, I'm certain even long before.

[@harrymills2770]

I think some of the sciences are less political than others. Anything to do with social or political science, and most of anthropology is 99% political. The softer the evidence, the more vehemently they insist on a particular theory, and the more intense the political fights between competing theories. Promotions and grants hang in the balance.

[@jamessmith6162]

@BoJangles-mw8od yup, always changing their supposed findings. Yet people still hold on to the science community as the voice of authority. As I recall the history of this world in that annels of the pages of history, and, the ongoing processes they continue to hold to, I'm utterly amazed that people can and will, rise up through the ranks, and perpetual the ongoing errors of this Institutions of Science; and of Higher learning. I choose the simple written word of the Lord. And I could with this source alone, topple and destroy anything that opposes it.

[@J0HN3]

“Science is provisional” the most honest thing I’ve ever heard from a fellow scientist.

[@PAWiley]

He's not a scientist.

[@appsenence9244]

Really? Go read a book please

[@jamiekutaj669]

Hello! What does the quote science is provisional mean to you?

[@warriorgp4640]

You're not a scientist

[@jamiekutaj669]

@@warriorgp4640 anyone that follows the scientific method is a scientist

[@soaps67]

He seems to literally say that this discovery does not mean there was no big bang, just that we are seeing galaxies that are older than we would have expected

[@Sawyeroh]

It had a BEGINNING

[@SmiteMeAlmightySmiter]

@@Sawyeroh And the big bang also states it had a beginning...? "In particular, the big bang model of the universe begins with a singularity-a point that appeared out of nothing and contained the precursors of everything in the universe in a region so small that it had essentially no size at all."

[@Sawyeroh]

@@SmiteMeAlmightySmiter somthing can’t come from Nothing

[@SlayuhM]

​@@SmiteMeAlmightySmiterThis is so funny because I know your dumbass went to google and copied that 😂😂

[@Brock-yg6jc]

@@Sawyeroh Says who?

[@LMike2004]

Interesting point: In one of my older Astronomy magazines they wrote about observing galaxies that were traveling in adjacent angles to each other. To paraphrase the astronomer: "...if this is true, we know nothing. We know less than nothing."

[@SSMLivingPictures]

Yes, that would certainly seem to be true. Very interesting.

[@gemmawalker9179]

We take to many theories as gospel when really not got a clue

[@KC-kh8df]

Yes so much good info in those older mags.. the ones that came out back toward the 90s! Remember the planet that was detected in our solar system? That came out in 80/90s. IDK if that’s Planet X which is coming out more yet it’s still in theory state! SMH,

[@stevenp8198]

thats angular momentum and it would be impossible with a big bang as theorized!!!

[@russcooke5671]

It would be better if not knowing if it’s wrong. We are in awe of these scientists because they know big words. That’s all plus they all get a good living promoting lies. It’s all BOLLOX. The universe is many many times older then we think. The good thing about science is when your wrong you just move the goalposts and keep raking your wages in. Then come up with more BOLLOX to confuse people all over again

[@dannydonuts4219]

No matter what new record distances are discovered about dimensions of the universe the whole thing still fits inside something even larger.

[@Corteum]

Yes. Consciousness.

[@johntitorii6676]

We will never truly know anything

[@Corteum]

@@johntitorii6676 And yet we know something! We know that we dont truly know anything! LOl

[@zacharyshort384]

@@johntitorii6676 I know Coke is better than Pepsi.

[@nahCmeR]

I don't think Space expands into anything.. what exactly does it fit inside?

[@javperalta6964]

What gets me every time is hearing that every thing came from nothing

[@infinidominion]

And the fact that they buy that is incredible

[@mindofwaves4470]

everything came from everything

[@godsbeautifulflatearth]

Nobody can fathom God's Creation.

[@trinchuzosparty]

Who says that? 😅 Einstein already pointed out to the eternal constant amount of energy and matter in the universe

[@zoenation6573]

To quote Lon Milo, the first kind of nothing, is really nothing - not even the concept of no-thing. Then the light bulb moment when the vastness realises the notness of its nothingness! This double negative is tantamount to saying something is! and sets the stage for the first positive in the Universe - the concept of One.🤪

[@n0t_bdub]

That was a misleading video title…

[@user_James_Foard]

Actually it was the Medium Kaboom.

[@koobs4549]

It’s not the video title that’s the problem, it’s just your reading comprehension skills. Questions end in question marks while statements end with periods. The video title is clearly presenting a question but you seem to be reading it as if it’s a statement. The sooner you learn how punctuation works, the less confused you’ll be about the titles you click on 😂

[@ExpertContrarian]

@@koobs4549You tried so hard only to fall on your face.

[@darkuncle77]

Have you discussed your feelings about this with your associates and colleagues?

[@paperboydraws3527]

Right. He’s saying the James Webb actually confirmed the theory of big bang and some creationist tried to say it disproved it. His point of view is that there was a beginning so something had to set it in place. He’s a real physicist that uses evidence to point to a creator not just some creationist and doesn’t use confirmation bias.

[@yohannlaudren9128]

We have been completly wrong throughout our history, it is very likely that this is still the case.

[@РемонтКолясок-о3у]

agree 100% and it looks like old civilizations had more knowledge of our past

[@ivannenadovic9465]

@@РемонтКолясок-о3у how?

[@appsenence9244]

Yes we are always wrong. We are probably wrong about everything. Electricity, classical mechanics, relativity, quantum mechanics. This pc im writing on doesnt even work, these fkn scientists am i right? Im supposed to believe that my comment that im writing right now just reaches you from across the planet? Hell no, theres no way, they are always wrong.

[@eb-ol4po]

@@РемонтКолясок-о3уOf course they did. They were closer to our past than we are lol.

[@Barrythebarnabas]

@eb-ol4po are you bots? You seem to possess the intelligence of bots. Old civilizations thought Earth was center of the entire universe and that rubbing mud in an open wound was a good way to slow the bleeding. Old civilizations didn’t even know how to make door hinges but you morons think they knew more about astronomy than scientists today? 🤣🤦‍♂️

[@mothman-jz8ug]

The elephant in the room, that one huge question which is never brought up: What existed BEFORE the big bang? What, exactly "banged"? Are we to simply assume that matter didn't not exist, then it suddenly sprang forth from nothing? It is always presented as if suddenly, everything came from nothing. Has there been only one bang? Perhaps there were other bangs early, and they have expanded beyond our ability to recognize their existence?

[@coolguy1127]

The Big Bang theory is that all matter previously existed prior to the Big Bang, but this bang set it all in motion. Science has never said that matter came from nothing. Also we have evidence of the fallout or afterglow of the Big Bang. Fascinating stuff.

[@loopaking]

Something had to create the bang, the beginning, the universe. Nothing cannot create nothing. It had to be something. In my opinion I think it's amazing that how much more we discover the science behind things, the more we realize that there was "something" that started it or created it's law, or it's "purpose". Sounds familiar right? lol. It is said that no matter how much we keep going as humans, we will only ever discover a grain of sand to what's really happening and what's going on. That's even more amazing to think lol. For example, a living raw cell. No matter what we ever do, we can never create a raw cell from nothing, like they are here naturally. The cell itself has a purpose so therefore it has a creator.

[@coolguy1127]

@@loopaking the universe is nothing but pure chaos, black holes, planets colliding with asteroids, gravity ripping through space and time. Galaxies are born and die , with no rhyme or reason. Why is our galaxy any different? If you look at what goes on in the universe there’s no plan it’s just cosmic level destruction. Why are humans so egocentric that they think this universe needs some glorious purpose, when all this universe has shown us is that there is absolutely no plan, no reason just randomness.

[@werdwerdus]

space and time both were created in the big bang. there is no "before" the same way there was no "stuff"

[@ulrikof.2486]

The answer is "we do not know".

[@randall1715]

It is well known in science that when observations do not match your theory, your theory is wrong..

[@davezedman]

Not to many current scientists, apparently

[@eleethtahgra7182]

False. The observation of James Webb telescope do not disprove Big Bang. It match Big Bang. What it doesnt match is the formation of galaxy. This is like....discovery of electron when an Atom is considered smallest particle.

[@eleethtahgra7182]

False. It means teh hypothesis is false. If a hypothesis manage to become a theory, then its the Truth....within the known conditions n parameters. If new conditions/parameters emerge, then the theory has to be modified unless its basic assumption is proven to be false beyond doubt. Like newton.

[@abilioneto6366]

@@eleethtahgra7182 but the basic assumption is mostly in philosophy, gradualist materialism is before science a philosophical starting point, when the facts contradict the theory the "reformation" is like : my theory has to change but my philosophical premises dont, is not a pure scientific decision, the fact can sugest both of things and who choose a way istead another do by his own personal preferences not by any new fact.

[@eleethtahgra7182]

@@abilioneto6366 False. Again, like Newton. Two object with mass would accelerate toward one another. By Newton, its because mass pull each other. But thats faulty or incorrect. The correct one is by Einstein. It happen because curvature of space push the mass toward each other. However, regardless of Newton's faulty assumption, the fact is that two object with mass would accelerate toward each other. Its the same with Big Bang model. Regardless of the emergence of new fact, the previous facts still hold true. That stars all accelerate away from Earth's point of view. That we currently have Microwave Background Radiation. You really have no idea how Big Bang Model came to be, do u?

[@drmom9900]

We can't even accurately date the monuments of ancient egypt. I think its safe to say we know absolutely nothing about the universe

[@dio13373]

we know lots of things about the universe, dating things on earth is tricky as you need to deal with erosion over time and weather, which makes it hard to date due to many external factors affecting it, but light has a constant measure which means no matter what its speed is not changing with this we can accurately calculate distance/time. because of this we can calculate a point of origin, commonly referred to a bing bang. where everything was together superheated in a ball of plasma. but we can't "look" further back we can only state hypothesis from there. which means the universe could of existed before its plasma state for an infinite amount of time for all we know.

[@pawpkitty]

That's because radiocarbon dating isn't perfect lol

[@michaelkatz7862]

We know an incredible lot of the universe. But there is so much to know also. But saying we know nothing is false. And ignorant.

[@borune.9]

All we know is Theory... Which is the best version of a decent guess... That's all!

[@DubbzRHandle]

@@borune.9theory is not a decent guess. They can pick your parents out of every single human on earth using saliva and dna analysis. That is not a “good guess.” That is science. That is theory. A theory in the scientific sense means that something is essentially a fact. The model can explain various features of the universe. The problem is that in everyday language we use the word theory to explain every cockamamie idea that enters our heads.

[@JonathanDiggsDuke]

“Forever” is hard for the overwhelming majority to grasp.

[@musyclover]

You included 🙀

[@eddieestrada636]

Nope that’s all the time before and after very simple

[@maryb3620]

And it’s precisely why more humans than not choose to dwell in their sin,repeat it over& over as if their eternal destination isn’t a reality directly caused by their current choices& walk in life. Some arrogantly think that they can just convert on their deathbed & a golden ticket entry pass. The truth is it doesn’t really happen that way. If you choose to remain hardened in your sin for your whole life Uoj won’t change your mind at the end,even if you have time to choose at the end which many won’t get that option at all& be taken w/o notice or belief.

[@kimonk]

We as humans, who have a beginning and an end on this earth.. can never truly understand something with no beginning and no end.

[@erickedmondromanharris1549]

"Space may be the final frontier but it´s made in a Hollywood basement." RedHotChilliPeppers

[@lukaspersson447]

Another cheap and generic lyrics about taking drugs, pretending to be deep. The only depth that band has is the bass and guitar.

[@Wyckateer]

@@lukaspersson447 or he could be talking about the fake moon landing that was obviously not real

[@WolfOfLosAngeles]

Never really liked Red Hot Chili Peppers and I’m from LA lol

[@boazzippor1972]

love the hissy fit the comments for this (brilliant) quote brought here... lol

[@UniteAgainstEvil]

​@@boazzippor1972always hatin'

[@michaelbruns449]

Every 100 years or so most of our concepts change, the more we think we know the more we know we dont know, real reality is beyond human comprehension, as was designed.

[@malachi-]

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. - Max Planck (Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918)

[@Pow_FIsh]

@@malachi- tell that to quantum theory

[@elonever.2.071]

@@Pow_FIsh Max Planck was one of the founders of Quantum Theory. He also said, contrary to traditional materialist physicist belief, that Consciousness creates matter not the other way around.

[@Pow_FIsh]

@@atheisticallysound try to find evidence of curvature that you can personally verify (not using indirect means). When you realize the earth is a snowglobe, it's time to start reevaluating things. t.lifetime atheist until a friend of mine got into unround terra and I scheduled a couple hours to prove her wrong but couldn't.

[@malachi-]

@@elonever.2.071 As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . we must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter. ― Max Planck, The New Science

[@haydenradcliff9774]

ALL of my problems and the daily problems that everyone in the world faces will be completely resolved once this mystery is solved!

[@ianlassitter2397]

😂😂😂

[@trulymental7651]

If they hadn't wasted billions pretending they know stuff ,blowing stuff up ,ruining the environment here doing it, maybe the world could be a nice place . Boys and their nazi rockets 😀

[@highendservicesbarrieont8347]

😂😂😂👍🏻👍🏻

[@0rangecray0n]

Maybe once the smartest people in the universe turn their attention towards us maybe life will get better

[@trulymental7651]

@@0rangecray0n or even the smartest people on this planet.

[@HereForAStorm]

We will have to consult Dr. Fauci on this... I heard that he is, in fact, science itself.

[@mikegeee3319]

Or Joe Rogan....he knows everything 🙄

[@garrettramirez428]

Nah, cut out the middleman and just ask Bill Gates

[@Turgz]

@@mikegeee3319 Knowing more than you do doesn't mean knowing everything.

[@jimhughes1070]

😭😭😭🤣🤣🤣💯

[@mikegeee3319]

@@Turgz I'll trust a scientist w 40 years experience over Rogan lol

[@printerman99]

I read a few months ago that they now think the universe is 26 billion yrs old, not 13.5, 138, etc. since it keeps changing, maybe we just don't know.

[@2norberto]

You should be careful when one person makes a claim even if they are a scientist. The scientific consensus is still 13 something billion years old.

[@fatmayo2293]

Science changes almost daily and cannot always be trusted. Too many scientists are caught up in arrogance, when a lot of them are just flat out wrong.

[@josephakot4821]

@@2norberto consensus means nothing when there is contrary evidence.

[@2norberto]

@josephakot4821 Yes, it does. Scientific consensus means mean when the majority of the evidence and studies point to one direction. You dont go with what one person says until it's Scrutinized by many different sources.

[@Hubtones1]

Agreed, unmerited confidence coming from all directions

[@edgarrenenartatez1932]

Dr. Meyer is always thorough and insightful. Thanks Dr. Keating!

[@kdubs9111]

This is the equivalent of Gobekli Tepe setting the date back for the emergence of settlements and the fussy academics still can’t accept the new paradigm.

[@mozes42]

And they’ll fight the new info tooth & nail just like they have with Gobekli Tepe too. Seeing such closed-mindedness in “academics” is so disappointing.

[@phillies4eva]

⁠@@mozes42it is sad isn’t it? Most people don’t change their minds they just die. Add a power structure to that and you get the current state of academia.

[@DJCallidus]

Lots of "gatekeeping" goes on within institutions. So much is invested in the world as it's been presented since the 'enlightenment'. One topic that interests me is why various influential people, many being politicians have visited Antarctica and why any research or exploration of the place seems heavily discouraged or shrouded.

[@bradleyperry1735]

You should read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. This is actually how science tends to work. New information only is accepted when the old guard dies. The scientific establishment doesn’t actually operate according to what people call the scientific method.

[@fromtheland86]

You may be confusing one of the strengths of the scientific method with stubbornness in some cases. When a new idea emerges that goes against the current status quo, it's expected that other scientists will do their best to tear the idea apart and attack any angle they can. It is only by surviving this gauntlet of challenges that a fringe idea can one day become mainstream. If the evidence is conclusive, ideas gain traction fairly quickly. When other explanations also can fit the data, or results vary there will be much more pushback. Some men built their legacy around theories that may be disproven later, surely they'll defend them. But other men build their legacy disproving older theories and changing the paradigm.

[@jopo6388]

NASA ‘Not A Space Agency’. Lmao.

[@zackerybartlett8050]

Never A Straight Answer

[@kingjoe3rd]

NASA is not a civilian space agency but a military one, as everything they do is subject to military classification.

[@jaimefish173]

Because NASA didnt care about its astronauts back in the day, we called them, Need another seven astronauts.

[@laoch5658]

NASA is a military agency not a space agency

[@edwardclancy8336]

@@jaimefish173 Challenger no one died they are alive several now claiming to be twin brothers who did not attend funeral services and no record of birth for twins. One so called twin carries on the Legacy remembering his whatever. do your own research it is easily available

[@christophercremo3020]

The universe is probably older than they thought and those galaxies just had more time to form than they thought

[@markb3786]

Your common sense is not welcome here. Only conspiracies.

[@plasmaphysics1017]

Nope. Not according to evidence.

[@christophercremo3020]

When I was a kid they told me it was 5 billion old. Trust me. It will keep changing. They act like they know. They don’t

[@plasmaphysics1017]

@@christophercremo3020 _"They act like they know. They don’t"_ Yes they do. And it is based on evidence. Care to deal with it?

[@christophercremo3020]

@@plasmaphysics1017 Humans are very limited, but very egotistical. Some think they know it all, but in reality they know next to nothing.

[@garrettmenteer2066]

The video literally says big bang IS CONFIRMED. Title is click bait.

[@Canuck-1976]

The bang is not confirmed. There isn't any factual evidence for it that can't be refuted. The said the same thing about the age of the bang.

[@MajorMustang1117]

​@Canuck-1976 While I agree with you, it doesn't change that the video is clickbait. The video speaks of the expansion of the universe, based on bin bang models, to be correct. So why the title says it is disproven in this video really doesn't make sense.

[@koobs4549]

It’s not click bait, go back & read the title again. Last time I checked, questions end in question marks & statements end in periods. If you read the title as a statement, you should probably take a course on punctuation so that you’re less confused in the future

[@MajorMustang1117]

@@koobs4549 I'm convinced you're an idiot. 🫡

[@ailuosi7241]

imagine being as low i.q. as this that you lack basic comprehension skills

[@bobafeet1234]

(To me, this sounds like the Universal Torus theory. Birth, life, death... rebirth, infinitely). I think the Roger Penrose theory, that the cosmic background radiation was already evenly dispersed at the moment of the Big Bang, is fascinating. That means the empty space the Universe propagated into was already there for an infinite amount of time. And that we are living in the opposite side of a black hole... the Big Bang was a white hole (explains a lot)... crazy.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

CMBR: (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation): Consider the following: Per QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics, whereby 'em' interacts with the electrons in atoms and molecules) and QCD (Quantum Chromo Dynamics, whereby 'em' interacts with the nucleus of atoms), matter has to exist for 'em' to be given off by that matter. What matter exists in outer space for that microwave 'em' to be seen by us? And 'if' it were from when matter first came into existence during the fairy tale of the 'singular big bang', that 'em' should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us. BB -> Matter and 'em' are created -> 'em' moves at the speed of light, matter moves more slowly -> (Billions of years go by) -> matter (and us) here ..........................................'em' long gone. (And there is no matter 'out here' yet for any 'em' to come back to us via QED or QCD).

[@charlesbrightman4237]

IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING: SOME THINGS MODERN SCIENCE DOES NOT APPARENTLY KNOW: Consider the following: a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics). b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand. c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary. d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above. e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality? f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon? And electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. Why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe? Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above. Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?). g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent? h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How?

[@johnwilliams3555]

@@charlesbrightman4237 Who the heck are you Charles? Well that just threw a spanner in the works. Brilliant!

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@johnwilliams3555 Thanks, consider my view concerning 'red shift' as well: RED SHIFT: WARNING: (CONTAINS EXISTENTIAL MATTERS): Red Shift: Consider the following: a. Current narrative: Space itself is expanding. (Even though science does not fully know yet what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually expand). b. But consider: The net effect of solar winds, particles and energy pushing outward from galaxies, (even modern science claims 'em' has momentum), continuously, over a prolonged period of time, with other galaxies doing the same, with nothing to stop them from doing so, would tend to push galaxies away from each other and even potentially allow the cosmic web to form between galaxies. And then, when we here in our galaxy, look at far away galaxies, with other galaxies in between, the net effect of all those galactic interactions would have galaxies furthest from ours move away faster the further those galaxies were from us, including us perceiving a red shift of energy. c. Now, utilizing the scientific principal of Occam's razor, which way is more probably correct? What the current narrative is ('a' above), or 'b' utilizing known physics? * Added note: Plus, 'if' my analysis is correct that our spiral shaped galaxy is collapsing in upon itself, then consider also: d. When we look at solar systems between ours and the center of the galaxy, those solar systems would be getting pulled faster towards the center than ours, hence also seeing a red shift of energy. e. When we look at solar systems between ours and the outer edge of the galaxy, our solar system would be getting pulled faster towards the center then them, hence also seeing a red shift of energy. f. Only if we looked at solar systems adjacent to ours should we see a blue shift of energy (as the solar systems became closer together as they moved towards the center of the galaxy). I also propose looking for blue shifts of energy between our solar system and adjacent solar systems to confirm or deny this current belief. g. But if true, would also add to our observation of seeing a red shift of energy in this universe as our spiral shaped galaxy collapses in upon itself. Of which, not only would species from this Earth have to get off of this Earth before the Sun becomes a red giant one day and wipes out all life on this Earth if not even the entire Earth itself, but species from this Earth would also have to successfully get out of this collapsing spiral shaped galaxy, otherwise, most probably death awaits us all and this Earth and all on it are all just a waste of space time in this universe. All life from this Earth would eventually die and go extinct. Currently, no exceptions. h. QUESTION: Do basically all galaxies eventually collapse in upon themselves? (Which would add to the perceived red shift between galaxies as they all basically shrink in size). Modern science currently states that 'gravity' is matter bending the fabric of spacetime. There is a lot of matter in a galaxy and hence would make a huge dent in spacetime. How could galaxies not collapse in upon themselves if space and time were bent to make it so? Of which also, the progression of galaxies?: 1. How exactly do galaxies form? (The current narrative is that matter, via gravity, attracts other matter. The electric universe model also includes universal plasma currents.) 2. How exactly do galaxies flatten out if gravity is acting on the whole galaxy? (Other forces must also be at work besides gravity for a galaxy to flatten out? Electrical and/or magnetic forces?) 3. How exactly do galaxies become spiral shaped? (At least one way would be orbital velocity of matter with at least gravity acting upon that matter, would cause a spiral shaped effect. The electric universe model also includes energy input into the galaxy, which spiral towards the galactic center, which then gets thrust out from the center, at about 90 degrees from the input. Additionally, with the conservation of energy, as energy moves into the vertical plane from the center of the horizontal plane, energy from the horisontal plane moves to the center of the horizontal plane to replace the energy that moved into the vertical plane. There is also the conservation of angular momentum. As more matter moves towards the center of the galaxy, that portion of the galaxy would speed up relative to the matter towards the outer portions of the galaxy.) Additionally: GALAXY SPIN: (Inner and Outer areas spinning at the same speed): The inner and outer areas of the galaxy are connected via gravitational, electrical, and magnetic energy fields. While moving at the same speed, the inner area has less space to travel whereas the outer area has more space to travel. Hence a spiral shape forms. 4. The natural progression of a galaxy would be to become smaller and smaller. 5. Of which, does all life throughout the entire universe (if other life even exists in the universe besides what is on this Earth, which is most probably true) eventually die and go extinct and the entire universe and all in it are ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things and the entire universe and all in it are ultimately just a waste of spacetime in existence? And even 'if' the current narrative of space itself is expanding, and the entire universe would eventually end in a 'big freeze', wouldn't the end of life itself in this entire universe still occur?

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@johnwilliams3555 I am 'me'.

[@X3MgamePlays]

I still think there is something fundametal wrong with the whole theory regarding redshift. They still need to measure redshift, redshifting. Meaning that the wavelenght of a very distant object is visible changing over time too. Lets say that for example z=10 becomes z=10.000000001 over a span of the last 50 years or so. Something like that. If it cannot be calculated and tested, redshift itself might be caused by something else.

[@plasmaphysics1017]

_"redshift itself might be caused by something else."_ And what would that be? Trust me, various crackpots have been pushing tired light nonsense for decades. None of them have a viable mechanism.

[@iori1303]

Redshifting is a proven theory, you CAN messure it and calculate it

[@ArchonOne]

I strongly suggest looking up Halton Arp so you can find out exactly what is wrong with redshift. It's a lot. More than you can easily imagine. Happy hunting.

[@ArchonOne]

Oh its a proven theory is it? So I guess you never read the Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies by Halton Arp where he shows pictures of thousands of blue-shifted galaxies physically connected with a visible plasma bridge to highly redshifted ones? How's that possible if redshift is an indication of direction and speed? My best advice is to be very careful about what you accept as a proven theory. It might shock you to learn just how much of our theory of space is one broken theory piled on top of another broken theory. Whenever you have a conclusion and are looking for evidence to support it, things tend to go bad; and that is exactly what our theoretical space sciences have become. A bunch of biased people protecting their degrees and reputations by ignoring what we observe and patching their broken, non-predictive theories. In 200 years, the stuff we "know" today is going to be laughed at and people are going to wonder how anyone ever bought into this big-bang dark matter nonsense. @@iori1303

[@brianfriedman101]

Hubble didn't think so. Can you imagine? Redshift of light on those distances cannot be proved

[@kylemoran4343]

I always assumed, "space" was something between the ears of politicians and news reporters ! Gee, guess I might be right ?

[@Justdont693]

Well. If we’re being honest. We all have some space is that area. Some more than others 😂

[@frwansie]

We all started with a bang

[@ataho2000]

When it comes to politicians and news reporters, your conflating space with void.

[@RodMartinJr]

Yes, and space (which separates us) is also the opposite of Love (which brings us together). 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@Pow_FIsh]

ding ding ding

[@HaulingBonez]

So, every car passing me on the highway started from a single point in space?

[@Lukey111]

The particles that comprise the car? Yes

[@foogentog]

No. Space was created by the Big Bang. Space didn’t exist until matter existed.

[@i_assume]

Are those physical particles?

[@biskienator]

I would love to know if they have been able to determine the approximate center/starting point of the big bang and where we are in relation to that "center"

[@williampearl2384]

There is a "Great void" where there are very few galaxies and stars. I wonder if this could be the "center".

[@Gary_Winthorpe]

Lololoool. You guys actually believe this stuff? 😂

[@coltfathwell6185]

@@Gary_Winthorpe anyone with a brain and wasn't brainwashed for 20 years by their mommies and daddies knows science has better explanations of the start of the universe then the "sky daddies' theory"............ we know we know your imaginary friend in the sky had some random bums and drunks feel his love and write a bunch of chapters in a book and it said god is real.

[@TheManOfSteel5151]

I think according to the theory the center point is the entire universe so there is no starting point it just expands in every direction and does not expand away from a starting point.

[@wsplatinum]

@@Gary_Winthorpe care to share an alternative model?

[@victor7574]

"Give us one free miracle, and we'll explain everything else."--Terence McKenna

[@ramirocantu3869]

More like miracles

[@victor7574]

McKenna was referring to the Big Bang.@@ramirocantu3869

[@speleoth]

The free miracle has already been given in Jesus's sacrifice on the cross.

[@a-walpatches6460]

@@speleoth That's a fairytale not a miracle, there's an important distinction.

[@seraphimdunn]

@@a-walpatches6460 The big bang is literally a creation myth, but go off.

[@lukesanborn87]

After reading many comments here, it seems that many are reading and reacting to the video title without really listening to/understanding what Stephen is actually saying.

[@kylemenos]

No they are just too stupid to understand what he said. Unfortunately. Ya, that's what you get when you throw the family and nation out the window for identity politics and drugs.

[@elonever.2.071]

We understand what he is saying we just don't agree with it.

[@Pow_FIsh]

its an important lesson about the lies of science.

[@lukesanborn87]

@@Pow_FIshBased on that response, you’re definitely one of the people my comment was directed at. Literally nothing he said indicates that he is concerned with the “lies of science”, whatever that might mean.

[@koobs4549]

The main problem is that people don’t seem to understand the simple difference between a period & a question mark 😂

[@sowhatsyourstories]

Science in this world comes down to funding. You attempt to prove the narrative that keeps the money flowing.

[@jacksonnc8877]

The universe is way older than what they have predicted based on how fast these distant old galaxys should be at

[@senju2024]

So the big bang theory is still valid but our timeline and the age of the universe seems incorrect? That would make sense.

[@readynowforever3676]

Dude, stay in your lane. Your cosmo expertise, when it comes to qualitative literacy, quantitative analysis and final computations, is not much superior than your pit bull’s.

[@earlforrester4908]

I read something other day saying the galaxy’s formed much faster then thought possible because all the matter that made them was closer together. The age time was the same but the space around them wasn’t.

[@readynowforever3676]

@@earlforrester4908 That sounds coherently probable and plausible. 👍🏽✊🏽💪🏽👏🏽 Instead of relying merely upon intuitive assumptions, and making half baked conclusions, stay cognitive and explorative. And that will expand your intuition vastly. Sounds like you have the right practices. ✌🏽

[@zacharyshort384]

@@readynowforever3676 You don't know his Pit Bull's academic achievements, mate.

[@ransomsimmons3218]

This accomplished physicist said something that I do not think he meant. He said that the redshifts in faraway galaxies were predicted by the Big Bang theory, when in fact, redshift was known before the Big Bang was an accepted theory. If a galaxy is moving away from you, even if there were no universal expansion or Big Bang, there would still be a redshift of the light.

[@ulrikof.2486]

Imho correct.

[@edeledeledel5490]

Perhaps he meant the extent of the particular redshifts? I don't know, is spite of the fact I studied astrophysics at Uni. But it was 52 years ago... Everything that I knew is now probably complete bollocks. That's what happens with science.

[@Pow_FIsh]

you have to really hunt for things that confirm the big bang, and totally ignore the cosmic background radiation is oriented to earth.

[@eleethtahgra7182]

The discovery of redshift leads to big bang. The issue is, everywhere edwin hubble look, everything is redshifted. Thus, based on the earth observer, everything (that is far away) is moving away from earth.

[@Pow_FIsh]

@@eleethtahgra7182 there's many observations which seems consistent with the idea that the earth is the center of the universe. The 'Axis of evil' is another one, how the cosmic background radiation seems to be oriented to 'earths' 'rotation plane'. These anomalies disappear when you develop a model that rejects space.

[@HarryJ10]

What are the best books to read for a beginner/novice with an interest in the universe and space?

[@MrHuddo]

For a beginner, I'd suggest 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence M. Krauss.

[@belgischepommes7466]

The universe in a nutshell have good think points

[@hayneshuntingcom]

Im Ok...Your OK...but space is weird. I forget the author

[@bradmowreader5983]

Electric Universe Model , Thunderbolts project, Wal Thornhill, Velekovsky

[@happyhealthydutchie]

The Dream, David Icke

[@sergio199407]

Big bang theory sounds cool in middle school but the older you get it's so flawed

[@OrangeGeemer]

3:05 watch the video, not just the clickbait title. The measurement made the Big Bang Theory stronger, the anomaly is on galaxy formation, specifically the time current models predicts it will take to form.

[@jameson2916]

The whole flaw is that its supposed to explain the beginning of the universe but it doesn't. It just "explains" the expansion of it. The question of how did something come from nothing has no explanation to someone who values science as the study of evidence. So to bandaid the original thought in a less scientific, more religious matter many wanted to believe what they had been told as a child or just simply "had faith" that it was so, it was changed to the universe bieng condensed before it exploded. They assumed models that fit thier conformation bias and as they were disproven over time had to be band-aided even more as more study of evidence was actually done. A scientific mind can not accept that everything, including matter, energy and forces, space, time, information, and intelligence to recognize it, simply came from nothing with no prior cause. It was already here and just exploded into everything. But, where did it come from? That's the question that the Big Bang theory was supposed to answer and now has become merely a Band-Aid for its own self.

[@koobs4549]

What cracks me up is how Christians & Scientists continue to argue semantics. A Christian will say there was no Big Bang, while believing that God spoke everything into existence. Isn’t that the same friggin’ thing? 😂 I mean the word itself, “universe” literally means a single spoken phrase. So the two communities should agree on this concept, no?

[@koobs4549]

@@OrangeGeemerit’s not clickbait, you just need to stop reading questions as if they’re statements. The title made no claims, it asked a question, once you understand punctuation, you should be less confuse going forward

[@MM-vs2et]

If it does, then good. It means progress. It means discovery. And that is always healthy in science. In fact, theories get disproven all the time. Usually by their own authors. The day that theories stop getting proven or disproven would be a dark day for science.

[@mcephas6982]

The Copernican Principle has been disproved multiple times, but that doesn't stop scientists from engaging in mental gymnastics to keep their theories propped up. If they have to reinvent the laws of physics with special relativity, insert made up dark matter into their equations, invent an ever expanding Big Bang universe to explain away why everything is red shifted, they'll do it. They'll do it rather than question their foundational beliefs regarding the earth. Anything to prop up the Copernican Principle. In fact, most of the new theories discovered over the past century have been used to prop up their foundational theory that the earth moves and has no favoured location.

[@terrorsquadlith]

yes, that's why science can not be trusted

[@danemaui8259]

That's already happened. Need to break it to you. Is the big bang theory? When was the last time somebody tried to disprove that??????????? Or approve for that matter....

[@terrorsquadlith]

@@danemaui8259 when was the last time ? :DLMAO not that long ago actually..

[@RodMartinJr]

Good point. Scientists are human, and human frailties like *_Ego_* and *_Toxic Certainty_* only get in the way of science. Scientific Method requires that we be unbiased. Regrettably, scientists seem to have chosen a heavily biased paradigm -- doubt-ridden "skepticism." Contrary to the popular myth, the better paradigm for discovery is restraint and humility. Restraint from jumping to the easiest conclusion, and humility to empirical evidence (humility to God, the source of that evidence). But asking some scientists to be humble, is like asking a donkey to fly by shoving it off a cliff. The poor creature is not suddenly going to sprout wings. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@metagaminguniversemgu2240]

The "Nasa People" are the Engineers at Northrop Grumman that built the JWST on behalf of a NASA contract.

[@regpharvey]

okay great thanks

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

So he is completely ignoring the contributions by ESA and CSA?

[@simonalcock1125]

Let's stop with the conspiracy theories and listen to huge consensus from a wide range of scientists around the world. Nothing is ever proven in science (unlike maths) but for now there's a LOT of data indicating that the big bang + inflation model is the current one to beat.

[@Latinkuro]

To me it is all about the data, the JWST data is telling us something is off, our perceived age of the universe might be incorrect. Our understanding of galaxy formation theory is so incomplete we can't really confirm or deny these findings at the moment. However, the JWST data is consistently pointing out that we do not have the full scope, and what we think is the age of the universe might be of by as much as 14 billion years.

[@Nohopefortheworld]

*off

[@jimreaper1337]

Time & Space are meaningless, i mean there are stars out there that could fit 400 quadrillion of our sun, inside... I can't even fathom 400 quadrillion, let alone 400 quadrillion suns, in just 1 star Yet apparently, all this mass and universe, just one day, popped into existence from a point no bigger than a pin head 🤔

[@hdmccart6735]

Let's explain it all with a zombie carpenter in middle east shitsville...

[@n-xsta]

@@hdmccart6735 😂😂😂

[@Imagicka]

@@jimreaper1337 no. The Big Bang theory is about the rapid expansion of the universe, and not about what caused the rapid expansion. The BBT works with assumption there was an infinitely dense singularity, not that anything just popped into existence. The people who are claiming that everything came from nothing are believers/theists who believe in creatio ex nihilo.

[@sydbarrett4388]

My brain hurts.

[@Puzzoozoo]

I personally think the universe is bigger then we imagine and is thus older, and the big bang theory will be proved wrong.

[@martinroncetti4134]

Imagine that, the “science ISN’T settled”…

[@pelgrim8640]

It never claimed to be.

[@brandondetroitfanmichaels4325]

​@@pelgrim8640science always puts people in realities, that we think it should be until we learn something new! And we're put into that reality now until another new thing comes up. Like over 500 years ago, people thought the earth was flat. They lived in that reality

[@pelgrim8640]

@@brandondetroitfanmichaels4325 Again, science never claims to be "settled", in fact it is a core principle in science that ALL knowledge is provisional, it is called falsifiability.

[@brandondetroitfanmichaels4325]

@@pelgrim8640 like I said, people live in realities until they're proven wrong. Just like people 500 years ago, think in the world was flat

[@irfanshaikh9390]

That's the point of science. It constantly adapts to new information. What the hell is so difficult to grasp?

[@Daimo83]

One day they will say "can you believe they used to teach physics?" to kids in an elementary school classroom.

[@bgbuilds2712]

More likely they will say "can you believe they used to have classrooms?"

[@blinkonce29]

More like can you believe people didn't believe in physics 😂.... People need to understand what a theory means in science... It isn't a fact or can't be proven to be 100%true. It's called the Big Bang Theory for a reason 😂

[@seditiouswalrus]

​@blinkonce29 did you know the use of too many laughing emojis in any given sentence denotes a lack of intelligence? It is call the smiling emoji cluster meter. _a scientist_

[@blinkonce29]

@@seditiouswalrus Did you know that a complete stranger assuming they know your level of intelligence by counting the use of emojis in an informal comment section is......... absolutely hilarious 😂😆😂😂. Man you're smart 😂🤣 oh excuse me , I think you'd prefer "intelligent" 🤣. How many did I use I didn't count 🤣

[@blinkonce29]

@@seditiouswalrus I just noticed you ended your comment with " a scientist" 😂. No wonder you didn't have anything but a toddler's attempt at an insult instead of actually addressing what I said. Because what I said was true. As a scientist I hope you understand that you aren't intelligent. The men/women that actually discovered, came up with the facts,theories , data and information you've memorized are actually the intelligent ones. Not you 🤷

[@garymadisonii2889]

0^0=1 Zero to the power of zero equals ONE Nothing to the power of Nothing equals EVERYTHING

[@gordonc4721]

So now I cannot time travel back to kick my butt for leaving college?

[@provy1kanobi673]

U did already.....it was the best move you ever made....

[@kennethjackson3285]

At least no big collage loans to pay back

[@PrinceIsot]

So they can brainwash you into thinking cosmetic surgery can change genders? 😂 You're good.

[@sidd_not_vicious2609]

I do not believe we will ever know the actual size or reason of our universe..its beyond us as a species..

[@colinpierre3441]

Yup you're sure right about that... time is better spent getting to know the Creator of the universe

[@sidd_not_vicious2609]

I agree@@colinpierre3441

[@daleyoung4710]

There is no creator. Grow up.

[@changeforthebetter4063]

@@colinpierre3441 Amen

[@lionbolt2136]

@@daleyoung4710 And your source is what? trust me bro? You grow up.

[@stefordlucky6056]

Where is the place(coordinates) of the explosion?

[@leduc0721]

In the middle of space bro lol geez

[@mkoic11]

In Uranus😂

[@jordan390a]

0, 0,and uh 0....

[@stefordlucky6056]

@@jordan390a Can you show these coordinates on the map of the Universe?

[@meekrob]

​@@stefordlucky6056 Can you produce an accurate map of the universe?

[@garypugh1153]

Universe extends to infinity, and, always has been in existance. No big bang, no beginning, no end, no creation, only galaxies forming and unforming over and over forever. As eric lerner said in his book " the big bang never happened" , the universe is "nothing more"than a cosmic energy grid. Teachers are required to teach big bang , if they want their paycheck on fridays 😢

[@LarsBlock]

So doesn’t this potentially alter the perceived age of the universe?

[@russcooke5671]

Of course it does. That’s why the Big Bang is a theory.

[@Rugidios]

Yes, and will continue to change as we advance technology. Sciences does not mind being proved wrong

[@LarsBlock]

But scientists (being human) do, which is why any experiment or theory which can not be duplicated many times by other scientists should always be questioned. Why would you take issue with my question? It’s called the Scientific Method.

[@russcooke5671]

@@LarsBlock science is built on science that scientists agree on at the time of scientific research and discovery it’s all theory to a point because things change when new scientific instruments are made so the simple answer is we are never completely sure. Or we are sure then someone comes along and questions everything with the new scientific instruments and then we have to revalidate all over again. I think not sure though because I am not a SCIENTIST. Peace and love to all life forces in our wonderful universe. ♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️

[@KevinSandy2]

"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.” Nobel Prize physicist, Richard P. Feynman

[@plasmaphysics1017]

Errrr, yes. We have known that since long before Feynman. Stating the bloody obvious is not adding anything to the discussion.

[@AUniqueHandleName444]

@@plasmaphysics1017 He's just some guy in the youtube comments section, don't worry about it

[@ThePerpetualStudent]

My biology professor in undergrad once told me that "Science is a progress report of what we think we know at the time."

[@sailboatbob3969]

how old, or long can a galaxy live? is it possible that the light the JWST is seeing that galaxy is no longer around?

[@Biosynchro]

Yes, it is possible. But the question here is not, "Does that galaxy still exist?". The question is, "How old is that galaxy?"

[@HerpaDurpVg]

Correction: how old WAS that galaxy

[@Rocket9944]

Yes.

[@GMANIM]

Entirely possible

[@YTflagsCommentsOnMentalIness]

Modern science is ideological based. Seriously, look into it.

[@jacktupp4358]

I like how he's honest about it without beating around the bush... "... science is always provisional...". Where most scientists always try to hammer home the idea that the science is the science and believe it because science.

[@Mugen503]

I don’t know what scientists you’ve been listening to but none of them say that. I think you’re thinking of politicians not scientists.

[@derekfume8810]

@@Mugen503 well, popular science is all like that - dishonest and religious in a way.

[@Mugen503]

@@derekfume8810 what even is “popular science”? Regardless what others are claiming scientists don’t make these statements which was the point of my comment. Others trying to use science for power is not the same as scientists making wild claims which is what this person is stating.

[@Water64Rabbit]

@@Mugen503 It is the same group of people that have the "We believe Science" or "Science is Real" slogans -- mostly activists that have no understanding of the Scientific method and skepticism in general.

[@krusher74]

when they sayd "the scicnec is the science" they mean at this point in time this is what we thing to be true. You are misunderstanding them

[@phk2000]

The universe is infinite. What is infinite cannot expand - it’s already everywhere.

[@oskarskalski2982]

Ever heard of scale factor?

[@JasonDoege-js8io]

actually infinite means always expanding, not endless

[@phk2000]

@@JasonDoege-js8io you need to get yourself a dictionary.

[@JasonDoege-js8io]

@@phk2000 nothing could ever process something endless. so its impossible to know if it exists or not. its the old if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it does it make a sound thing. so if you want to believe in thats up to you, but you will, nor will even God ever be aware of it. so whats the point

[@phk2000]

When infinity is seen the immediate and positive change to your experience of life is incalculable. Dig deeper into this. You’ll be amazed!

[@philipfontaine8964]

How can a theory that has never been proven, become unproven. The big bang is theory .

[@anthonyBosSoCal]

WOW, How Pointless -- try explaining the following the CMB (ALL of its features), Baryonic ratios, and the Hubble Expansion! These are just a few of the Pillars of Moden Cosmology -- They can ONLY be explained by an Expanding universe -- all things that that Eric Lerner tries to ignore! Look up how bad his Fusion Company is, it is a Complete Fraud as is he!

[@AMC2283]

it's the accepted model, there's little reason to doubt it--it's not challenged by people wishing there was some proof that their religion was the right one

[@Floxflow]

Very interesting discussion. Eric Lerner should be on Joe Rogan.

[@raljix1566]

I think the Universe is far older than we think it is

[@LazyOtaku]

I'm far older than I think I am

[@yoursoulisforever]

Question, where along histories timeline did the definition of "the universe" change from one of all existence (which can have no beginning) to that of an event that occured (within existence) called the big bang?

[@RodMartinJr]

History's timeline shifted in the 20th century at several points. 1924 - Edwin Hubble discovered that the spiral nebula which had been known for years were not within this galaxy, but were external galaxies. This was the first big step to appreciating the huge nature of the universe. 1927 by Roman Catholic priest and physicist Georges Lemaître developed a hypothesis about an expanding universe coming from a single point. 1929 Hubble, gathering all of the known information realized that the farther a galaxy is from us, the faster it is moving away from us. This is Hubble's "Law" concerning the "red shift." 1964 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered cosmic background radiation coming from every direction of the sky, confirming the hypotheses about a Big Bang. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯

[@adm58]

I think the idea is that The Big Bang wasn't an event within existence. All of creation is within the universe. Before the universe there was nothing, no space, no time, no matter, etc. That's the impossible to conceive part; there was no place for the Big Bang to happen and no time for it to happen, no where, no when. Whatever force caused it was quite literally supernatural. That force could be called God

[@ryaugn]

Relatively recently due partly to our better understanding, scientists/physicists started using the term cosmos to represent all things including potentially pre-big bang, and universe to represent that which was produced by the Big Bang.

[@edeledeledel5490]

When physicists developed the theory to explain certain aspects of the physical universe

[@foogentog]

When people lost their spiritual connection and started getting arrogant. Most people have no clue what you’re talking about.

[@DrSpawn]

Conclusion: Galaxies seems to be older than we expected

[@mycrazylife408]

Sure but they still had a beginning. Which is God. Science keeps proving God the more time goes on.

[@Sbeve_One]

@@mycrazylife408ahh religious goons always gotta shoehorn god into it unless it’s something bad 😂

[@chuch541]

@@Sbeve_One eh there’s nothing wrong with summating about a hypothetical creator. Albeit “religious” folks are generally abhorrent. “Spirituality” is completely in line with all stem science.

[@CBT5777]

@@mycrazylife408 Which God?

[@mycrazylife408]

@@CBT5777 Christian God is the Only God.

[@thomraine600]

I always say "God said let there be light" and BANG there was light. As for the Bible's creation being "7 days", I ask "how long is "a day" for God ?? A couple billion human years maybe ??

[@lyndsiedrapeau527]

I believe in devolution. We are all definitely getting dumber no question

[@requim936]

Me too. We hit our stride a while back and now it's rapidly going downhill. People today are confused about what bathroom to go to.

[@winstonsmith8482]

There are multiple reasons for that, the main among them being the fact that there are no more selection pressures/natural selection. And the government giving incompetent, undeserving people free "childcare credits", welfare checks, disability checks, EBT cards and food stamps actually incentives the dumbest, least succesfull people to keep reproducing more and more offspring.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

So the key thing is whether we can attribute the FACT of observed redshift to the mere human consensus INTERPRETATION of expansion of the in-between grid. It wasn't a dumb assumption. Not at all. But JWST showed us we are wrong nonetheless. The fact it showed us furthest galaxies are as very mature AND at correct size is simply inconsistent with what we predicted to see if our standard model of accelerated expansion was correct. Lets not be bad losers here. We just did NOT predict what JWST showed. Period. It doesn't mean there never was a big bang. Just means the observed redshift is NOT related to what we thought was accelerated cosmic expansion. So no dark energy needed. sorry. There is an oscillating universe for sure, but we have to give up the idea we know its size and time limit for now (can be calculated differently though). It is orders of magnitude larger. Why can't we rejoice about this triumph of experimentalism and technology. Why spent billions on this superb instrument and simply don't dare to look through the telescope if it may proves us wrong. Something with Galileo? So then, let's now take the only sensible alternative of what caused redshift; the OBSERVED orthogonal wrapping of spacetime (and thus incoming light passing through it) at the edges of our own galaxy . We observed this phenomenon for sure at the interior of our galaxy (the redshift we call our yellowish central galactic bar, displaying Sag A* in an orthogonal projection). THAT is what causes redshift both at the interior edge and outer edge of our galactic plane. Looks like Nature first wants us to understand our own galaxy. Good riddance dark energy ! thanks to JWST we are finally put on the right track to understand our cosmos. I suggest our dear cosmologist finally dash out towards a bright new path. It's called a breakthrough. Go for it Brian!

[@plasmaphysics1017]

_"The fact it showed us furthest galaxies are as very mature AND at correct size"_ No, it didn't. It showed the furthest galaxies to be less massive and with lower metallicity. _"So no dark energy needed. sorry."_ Sorry? Want to explain the observations of the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect on the CMB photons? The baryon acoustic oscillation data? And the supernova 1a time-dilation measurements? All of them tell us that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. Let me know when your paper explaining those things is published.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

@@plasmaphysics1017 Thank you for your comment. Prior to the JWST mission anyone wishing the community agreed we must observe the furthest most redshifted galaxies as 1. enlarged and 2. non-mature blobs. That were the two basic SINE QUA NONE prerequisites for the hypothetical idea of accelerated expansion causing redshift in furthest galaxies. Helas. JWST has proven us dead wrong on BOTH accounts. End of story. Sorry. It doesn't matter which characteristics you retroactively try to attribute to a lost case as you do. Let me give you a simple example; If you claim a person is a biological male and next we observe this person giving birth, then Nature has proven this person cannot be a biological male. No matter how much arguments you try to deliver to the contrary, it's useless. OK, maybe its a bad example given the current state of gender recognition in academia, but the rational general public will understand my point. Let's just accept what JWST saw and move on. Better yet; turn this into a triumph for mankind and cosmology by simply admitting to the truth. I gave you the correct alternative explanation for redshift. I hope you take the message that was sent to you by JWST. Thats all we can do. We need to regain trust in academia and this is not helping.

[@plasmaphysics1017]

@@RWin-fp5jn Word salad, sunshine. Deal with the evidence I mentioned. You can't.

[@plasmaphysics1017]

@@RWin-fp5jn _"I gave you the correct alternative explanation for redshift"_ No you didn't. You haven't got the foggiest idea about redshift. You made up a bunch of impossible gibberish.

[@grantschiff7544]

It's an opportunity!

[@johnnywinford7789]

God made everything! They want to replace everything with fake replicas and science. But they can't do what God can do. The harder they try, the more they prove that God is real. 😂

[@leenonolee4629]

From the initial explosion of the alleged Big Bang matter has been flying outwards away from the singularity. That would imply that matter further away is less organized because it is at the wavefront. And that is not what the JWT is showing us. We are seeing incredibly organized and mature galaxies. Please explain? Where am I missing the boat?

[@dl2839]

Indeed, I really doubt that the Big Bang is why there is redshift. The galaxies 10 billion years ago aren't different from galaxies today.

[@koobs4549]

It all comes down to the simple deference between periods & question marks. You see, the title ends in a question mark but you seem to have read it as a period.

[@zenorabbit439]

I think the reason the galaxies were forming faster is cause there was less dark matter in the early universe making general gravity more intense

[@glenw-xm5zf]

God spoke this universe into being in less than a second. Lets pretend the 'exprts are right and man is 25 million yrs ol. If they started with 4 and 2 men 2 women. and they had just 4 kids and this repeated every 40 years. Do the exponential growth and decay thingy and tell me what our pop would be. Hint, the world would be covered with people to a depth of over 30 feet. Man has been around for 6,000 years. they can laugh at me for saying that, but I can laugh too, and often do. cheers

[@elonever.2.071]

Dark matter and dark energy are fudge factors to balance their equations. Anytime you have a fudge factor of +/- 10,000 times the sum there is a good chance either your original premise or your equations are wrong.

[@TJ_PowPow]

​@elonever.2.071 Exactly. Having went down the dark matter/energy rabbit hole, it resembles religion. You can't prove it does exist or doesn't exist. You can only say it should exist because there is currently no other explanation.

[@richardmcbroom102]

Per Wiki: "Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: 'A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.'" This is more-than-coincidentally the estimated amount of time it would take for a competitive and hence intelligently evolved tribal mentality to devolve into an idiocracy.

[@dougmoore4653]

this is why America is a representative republic and not a democracy.

[@meekrob]

Well then it's a good thing that the USA is not now, nor has ever been, a democracy.

[@matttcoburn]

These older galaxies were invisible to us before the new space telescope but still conform to an expanding universe but from an older timeline

[@Stevo_1985]

Yeah, with all dialogue and things discussed, it seems that the title of the video is a little silly. Having a telescope to catch the red shift of distant galaxies into the infrared - and detecting fully formed galaxies from very early on has done one of two things: 1. Shown the universe to be much older. 2. Shown galaxies to have formed faster. Or 3. Both 🙂

[@heckensteiner4713]

@@Stevo_1985 It's a clickbait title. Even science channels have succumbed to the clickbait disease.

[@Stevo_1985]

@@heckensteiner4713 Well at least we're sensible enough to know how to sift through all the silly billy videos 😊

[@aquacandela3705]

You're assuming as Einstein did that the speed of light is a constant, which it isn't. Not only has the speed of light been consistently reducing, it has been brought to a stop as well as excellerated by 300x. It may even go faster than that, but even if it were limited to 300x the light reaching us from distant galaxies would be arriving in a relatively short time.

[@Stevo_1985]

@@aquacandela3705 Yeah, the particle horizon is something like 46 billion light years away, accounting for the speed of expansion. Beyond that horizon is lots of stuff we'll likely never see, except of course for anything we continue to try to shift beyond visible light - which could maybe buy us a few billion more light years into the particle horizon 🙂

[@Lizardgrad89]

Nobody said the Big Bang didn’t happen, they did say it might have been longer ago than previously thought.

[@BigMan.270]

So who or what created the "Big Bang". Nothing can just happen from nothing.

[@Jipswiftly]

So how was it disproven? If anything, what was discussed is in support.

[@100nakpvp2]

I don't understand it either. I think that it's not about disproving it, but that we interpreted it wrong... Idk. That's why he is on Joe Rogan and not me i guess. He's smart

[@enderwiggen3638]

It wasn’t, he said it was confirmed that they saw the red shift they expected for a universe that originates from a single point. The newsie misquoted the scientist … what that scientist said is that galaxies formed a lot faster after the Big Bang than they thought possible.

[@Pangora2]

There's a market these days in making huge claims that everything we know is wrong in favor of something 'exciting'. The exciting thing doesn't answer anything usually.

[@elonever.2.071]

The title is click bait to get more views from people who don't think the big bang is actual science.

[@koobs4549]

Your confusion can be cleared up with simple punctuation. When you come to the end of a sentence, if there is a question mark, that means it was a question & if there’s a period, that means it’s a statement. You made the mistake of reading the question as if it were a statement. Hope that cleared up any confusion for you

[@dexterlecter7289]

Basically electric universe theory is more relevant now… simply fits so well.

[@bradthompson5383]

😢 are lying again.

[@tomrobingray]

Fit is not reliable. A spiders web looks like the pattern you get when a rock hits reinforced glass. The moon fits almost exactly over the sun. These things are just coincident patterns.

[@BrooklynSkateUSA]

How does this even remotely lead to that conclusion?

[@marfmang511]

@@BrooklynSkateUSA By working for CNN LOL

[@itachis2gaming882]

This ain’t disproving the Big Bang and it literally shows evidence of it lol

[@breakbad9753]

BIg bang always seemed “too perfect” to me

[@brucesmith8285]

Believing in cosmic evolution is like believing in Santa clause and the tooth fairy.

[@murraymadness4674]

There is something irrefutable about cosmology, it is the most obvious and clear fact and I take the position that it will continue in the future. That we have always underestimated how big the universe is. It started as a flat earth with a rotating sun, and progress even bigger and bigger and bigger, until now we even think it is too big to even see/detect how big it is. That should tell you something important.

[@tonywells6990]

It's so big that even light can't be bothered to cross it and tell us how big.

[@Kenneth-ts7bp]

God holds the cosmos in the palm of his hand. If it was expanding, there wouldn't be any room for anyone in heaven.

[@LANCEtheBOIL]

It shows how full of schitt a lot of "super smart" scientists really are.

[@thomaszanzal7846]

Also , maybe we do not really know how small we are. To a molecule just one human body seems like an unmeasurable universe

[@alexanderbielski9327]

I’ve always thought time would work differently as you got further or closer to the origin point of the universe. Any science guys have a take on that?

[@ZezoFleck]

Given that gravity would be greater, it makes sense. Good one 😊

[@lightbear939]

I think we look at the origin point as something that’s not alive when we are from it and are living. I believe that in some way it’s able to breathe in and out and sometime in irregular patterns. Idk just me throwing in my 2 cents haha but I can see why you would think that because it’s called the Big bang interpreting an explosion.

[@fred1652]

There is no origin point of the universe. At least not according to the big bang theory.

[@alexanderbielski9327]

@@fred1652 that’s confusing. Then wouldn’t the Big Bang not be a central “bang” but all of existence just popping in? And if the universe is expanding then where from and to? Fortunately these aren’t likely original questions 🤣

[@fred1652]

@@alexanderbielski9327 Of course sorry I should have explained, it IS confusing, or at least not obvious. One of the fundamental parts of the Big Bang is that it begins with the singularity, which is infinitely dense and contains everything in the universe. Because the singularity is everything, and everything is expanding technically everywhere is the center of the universe. I’m not sure if that was a good explanation but there are some good videos that cover it too. But that’s why when we observe celestial bodies none of them are moving in our direction, they’re all moving away.

[@FuzzyFoot58]

I dont think that the universe is the age we think it is. I think it is much older. Just because the oldest light we see has a certain age does not mean that this is the oldest light to ever have existed. There could easily have been older sources of light that perished and its light went out and passed by this planet beyond the observable universe far earlier than what we are able to see today. This may also be why our timeline for when the formation of galaxies dont add up; the universe is simply older than we think it is and the formation of galaxies is actually correct.

[@jimhughes1070]

@@FuzzyFoot58 What you just described... That is precisely what theoretical science is... A bunch of assumptions, leading to guesses.... That serve only to provide colorful distractions from the painfully obvious.... They have no idea what's going on 😎

[@FuzzyFoot58]

@@jimhughes1070 I wouldnt say that they have no idea. They have a very qualified guesstimate. And scientists will be the first to tell you if they dont know something; you dont get that honesty from politicians, corporations or religious leaders so that fact alone makes scientists the best people to take advice from. But guesswork has always been the first step in accomplishing anything and should never be underestimated; without it, we would still be hunting wild animals on the savannah dressed in only loincloths.

[@jimhughes1070]

@@FuzzyFoot58 That's all very sweet fuzzy foot 🙏😍... I wasn't being mean 😭 I was being "truthful" 😎 "A *qualified* guess," Is simply another way of saying "they know what they're talking about" 🤓 if everything you talk about is based on "assumptions" I cannot be measured or observed, you cannot make a "qualified" guess..🧐 in the English language, that is called an "assumption" 😎 And when you print it in textbooks and present them as facts, That's called "fraud"... At least in the English language 😭🤣 That's at least two levels of deception... From people we have been paying.... For generations 😁 The kind of "science" You are thinking about is called the "scientific method"💪 Francis Bacon 🧐 All the big theories have nothing to do with the "scientific method"😎.... Most people are completely unaware of their nefarious motivations.... So I will leave it there, and you can find out whether or not you are a curious person. 🤔.... Have a wonderful day! 💯

[@FuzzyFoot58]

@@jimhughes1070 I strongly disagree with your viewpoint on it, but I really dont feel like arguing. So I wish you a good day and hereby put it to rest.

[@jimhughes1070]

@@FuzzyFoot58 10-4 thank you very much 🙏❤️

[@4Dm8ion]

A couple decades ago I made the conjecture that perhaps the further out in space/ back in time one views one may be observing a special curvature of space and cyclic time. That is to say - those more mature distant galaxies may in fact be different versions of the same closer galaxies(at a different time & space) if space looped back on itself - also disallowing for there to be an outer limiting expansion envelope (like limiting a balloon edge of the universe). Rather it is more like a mobius loop in 4d space-time - it has no edge - no limit. So when viewing electromagnetic spectra the viewing goes beyond the edge and loops back on itself(the edge between the beginning and end of time disappears and is actually a continuous loop). In other words if one was able to look far enough in front of oneself and long enough - one would eventually see the back of one's head! Then I found some years later that what I conjectured was actually a viable hypothesis - not sure what that hypothesis is called or its origin. Just a thought experiment.

[@scottlarson8364]

It suggests Galaxies formed in what would necessarily be the innermost, least energetic, and therefore least dense area surrounding the singularity, or where it once was. And yet that area somehow must have cooled and coalesced within the first 200 million years. Most of the energy had already been flung outward. However, perhaps its like the center of an explosion, the energy expands outward, but it leaves a puff of smoke hanging in the sky. Maybe it was a big pocket, bubble or puff of energy that cooled and coalesced into matter, then formed galaxies. It would explain how those innermost galaxies developed first. There must have been residual energy lingering around the center of the Big Bang.

[@LecherousLizard]

There's no "explosion". All parts of the universe would move away from each other at the same speed, so there wouldn't be a "bubble" or "puff of energy" in the center that cooled faster.

[@leduc0721]

xD

[@jdalton4552]

Joe Rogan needs to interview Dr Randell Mills who has discovered the dark matter particle he calls Hydrino. Why this discovery is never mentioned by cosmologists is a complete mystery. Dr. Mills also promotes new theories that threaten Quantum Mechanics. He is a true genius in a par with Einstein. Nobody has really studied his free 1000 page website that documents his discoveries. We need to give this guy a platform to explain to the public exactly why existing theory is inadequate and should be replaced.

[@plasmaphysics1017]

Mills is a scam artist.

[@tonywells6990]

Do I detect sarcasm?

[@ifauckedu]

Poop taste good

[@SeamusMcFitz-jz9if]

You have no idea what you're talking about

[@jdalton4552]

You would be surprised what I know. The classified science that I know would transform society. And Randell Mills is just the tip of the iceberg. But lets get him out there so he can begin to reset the corrupt scientific process on this planet.

[@sireel]

Hubble thought he was wrong about red shift after studying quasars.

[@PearlmanYeC]

he is wrong about ongoing cosmic expansion. still, if SPIRAL, cosmological redshift does represent PAST cosmic expansion, that ended early in history.

[@oskarskalski2982]

But quasars were discovered long after his death.

[@valentinmalinov8424]

Hubble was an honest man. Just make for yourself a circular diagram of the expanding universe to see that CMB has been emitted in the center of this sphere and it is impossible CMB to come from the other edge of the Universe! - Further details you can find in my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"

[@ParanormalStories]

No one can ever prove the Earth to be spherical or that "outer space" is real.

[@quidproquo3933]

the acceptance of the Big Bang kinda weird to me .. seems impossible

[@valentinmalinov8424]

It is impossible! In my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" you can find undeniable facts and circular diagram that prove that CMB is coming from outher edge of the visible Universe, not from the proposed BB.

[@kevinschindele4829]

Nobody knows how all this mess started and nobody ever will. Always more questions than answers.

[@Kassadinftw]

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth". I'd say there's a fantastic origin explanation. Things are way too complex, and we keep discovering more complexity whether we look to the large or the small. One thing about the universe is certain and obvious to us based on the totality of our exploration so far, it's very finely engineered. We ought to be looking for a who, not a what.

[@Pow_FIsh]

@@Kassadinftw 100% agree and looking for the what while deliberately avoiding the who is almost an affront. It's like we live in a society controlled by people that hate God.

[@metalroofing6708]

@@Kassadinftw It is baffling, isn't it? The incessant drive in man to comprehend the infinite knowledge that was implemented in creation and is still implemented in the maintenance of life and all things. We don't even know what is gravity, consciousness, what exactly is life itself, etc etc. All this ignorance in the face of a perfectly designed and intensely complex environment and we prefer to try to figure it out for ourselves rather than just simply seek out and query the Great Architect of it all. I for one am grateful for his patience and mercy.

[@nicb.1411]

0:18 Omg has Eric ever walked outside?

[@ThomasSmith-os4zc]

Wal Thornhill and the Electric Universe has been talking about there never being a big bang. I found the Electric Universe over 15 years ago and released me from believing in the big bang.

[@jimmykrackin6344]

James Webb, Eric Larnar, and Stephen C. Mayer have Alien features

[@ontheroadtoZ]

😂🤣😂

[@kyzercube]

0:18 Vampire crackpot alert!

[@stop8738]

1:50 Awkward time to pause the video. 😂

[@adamsmidkiff1]

I like how he takes Lerner out of context while claiming Lerner was taking other people out of context.

[@godsdozer]

scientist and engineers cant even build a road that last for 10 years, and you think they can solve this mystery.

[@Cognitoman]

He didn’t disprove big bang wtf?

[@boxbury]

I’m proud of the fact that this man is a Christian. Brilliant!

[@RiaanPretorius]

Yep!

[@spacebum]

Pride is a sin.

[@Blandyman]

Obviously the Big bang was preceded by a big crush. Redshift is incontrovertibly incorrect in terms of measuring the expansion of everything starting with the big bang. If you quantized space into 11 dimensions and assume that space quanta have any interior elasticity at all, redshift becomes imminent and you don't need to attempt to rationalize all kinds of mathematical errors and dark energy. Was there a big bang? Yes. Does that automatically and necessarily imply a proceeding big crush? Absolutely.

[@DennisKenneybees]

What the Hel. The title says "Big Bang Just DISPROVEN" and this video tells just the opposite; that there is more evidence that the Big Band theory is likly true.

[@bbwolf495]

Punctuation is very important and you obviously missed the ❓

[@davemi00]

This tends to give more relevance to Genesis. That’s their problem. Not ours.

[@Jesse-Acts238]

Aliens are probably watching us talk about the Big bang, saying "geez it was just a fender bender"😂

[@KK-wx1mi]

Did people not watch the whole video 😂??? The comments seem like they just read the title of the video and ran straight to the comments. Like he just explains why big bang is such a strong theory.

[@terance9551]

If you think everything suddenly appeared from nothing - you nuts!

[@plasmaphysics1017]

And nobody is claiming that. It is an oft repeated strawman of the creationist crackpots.

[@pleaseclap5210]

I just went through most of these comments threads and you have been whinging in here for the last 6 days, lashing out at anyone who dare ask a question. Clearly your ego does the talking. The funniest part is you calling everyone else crackpots!​@@plasmaphysics1017

[@andye5724]

@@plasmaphysics1017 Still a valid point. You cant just say "its was always there" when asked what was before the big bang. Something cannot come from nothing. Doubt we will ever get this answer but to downplay other theories on what was before you might as well join a church.

[@plasmaphysics1017]

@@andye5724 No, it isn't a valid point. Nobody says it came from nothing. Learn physics. And there are no other models to downplay. The all failed, remember?

[@elmerfudd9677]

​@plasmaphysics1017 If you believe in evolution and the big bang theory, you're guilty of blindly believing in faith-based religion.

[@Anita95_original]

35 years ago I stated that the Big Bang is the wrong theory, that the universe is endless, infinite and stationary, no dark energy, no dark matter. This requires reevaluation about the expansion, new way of interpreting the red shift, and new distance measures. So, yes, I think this last year has been fantastic and younger brains have a smörgåsbord of ideas and observations to make sense of. Cosmology is revitalized, now the work begins. I envy the young.

[@snarfsnarfff]

It has always been and always will be

[@printerman99]

I'm 62, and have believed this for a very long time.

[@juice7546]

The universe is, and has always been, finite in the past. All scientific data and evidence and philosophical arguments point to this without exception. There is no data or basis for thinking the universe is external. Holding onto that theory seems to be emotional rather than scientific. Science requires you ruthlessly abandon failed theories and come up with new ones to explain the evidence.

[@printerman99]

Anita, I agree with you. they keep changing the "age" of the universe, which i think, is more reason to say it is infinite. always was is and shall be.

[@juice7546]

@@printerman99 Infinity is an interesting concept. It’s not a real number. You can’t get there by adding up numbers to each other, or multiplying. Infinity is an idea about an endless potential of something. However, nothing exists in reality which is infinite. Because you can’t get to infinite by adding together numbers, 1 unit of space added to another will never be infinite. No matter how big it gets, it’s finite. Anything that exists in reality and can be counted is, necessity, finite in total quantity. And that’s true of moments in the past. The number of seconds in the past is not infinite. by the same thinking, the number of successive “causes” of things in the past is not infinite. It’s a finite (though huge) number that leads back to the Big Bang. Beyond that, we speculate the cause of the Big Bang. Dig into this a bit, it’s fascinating and will change your perspective when people say something is “infinite”.

[@zgobermn6895]

Excellent summary by Dr Meyer!

[@Reclaimer77]

Don't call this quack a doctor please.

[@georgecortes853]

You should watch professor dave agree with him and show more evidence 😎👍 you'll love it my friend!