Big News! The James Webb Space Telescope Has Just Discovered a Star That Is Older than the Universe!

What if a single star challenged everything we know about the age of the universe? Can we imagine a universe that is actually much older than assumed? In a shock moment for science, the James Webb Space Telescope has just tracked down a star whose age challenges our previous understanding of our cosmos.

[@exodiathegod1177]

This is what i love about science. It continues to investigate, learn and has no problem correcting itself with new evidence

[@nathandeputter8637]

Meaning it's never right. Or at least we cannot trust it completely. I know Someone we can trust tho.. The God that created us.. and the universe. He made it so big, we can not comprehend it. Never. Everything sience discovers points to our loving big creator!

[@nordattack]

If only what you said was true. Science loves its pet theories and defends them just as fanatically as any religious zealot. It has been rightly said that "Science advances one funeral at a time.

[@elijahalmenar5878]

Wrong, God and Science never work together, God is only a man, he has no godly abilities

[@elijahalmenar5878]

The Bible and things like that are fictional (talking about all of their powers or feats)

[@shehroonkhan4030]

​@@elijahalmenar5878YeS

[@davidrichardson8855]

So the celestial matter I’m made up of is twice as old? That would explain my recent lethargy.

[@jim2376]

😆😆😆😆

[@CUNDUNDO]

The more James Webb discovers the more confused we all are 😂😂😂

[@harisaslam573]

Science is just a new born kid in front of the universe. Read what God tells us about his creation in the Quran.

[@andreungoogable]

somehow it was predicted, we will end not knowing the Universe, despite the Universe does not care at all lol

[@MrWolfheart111]

Something wrong with the James Webb.

[@outofmytr3317]

Confusion begets curiosity which begets inspection which brings knowledge

[@Mountain-Viking]

And it's a good thing.

[@OfentseMwaseFilms]

We are looking at 26 Billion Years old light. Can you even understand how far that light has to be? Can you understand how big our universe is?

[@tyroneallen7857]

Can you comprehend time? The universe does not run on math. The universe runs on time. The most accurate description of time in mathematics is the infinity sign.

[@creationmuse2313]

CGI😁

[@notyourroad]

It's hard to get my mind around it.

[@jacobsmith4284]

Nope.

[@vanzilar]

Yes, very easily. I skimmed throug the video and there were quite a few errors in this one which make me annoyed.

[@IvanKalamazoo55]

50 years from now, after launching the next generation space telescope, you'll observe stars that are 40-50 billion light years away. The Universe is infinite.

[@Kratos_TM]

They already are close to that far! 40 billion light years away doesn't mean that's how old the universe is, bcuz we don't know how exactly to account for inflation yet. Fascinating stuff

[@abooswalehmosafeer173]

That's exactly my point that you have so much more clearly.

[@systemoverridegamingclips5305]

All you need is time. Time for light to reach us. The observable universe is 92 billion light years across. But it's been expanding for 13.8 billion years this means the actual universe is now 250 billion light years across. But that light hasn't reached us yet. We see 95 percent of the universe in light echoes. As it was billions of years in the past except for our local group which is gravitationaly bound

[@tester3x]

@@systemoverridegamingclips5305 its not just the 13.8 billion years we see expanding. Everything that we do not have the technological advancement to see yet is also expanding. We started only seeing the moon and dots of light in the sky.

[@g-r-a-e-m-e-]

Stick to the facts?

[@jackma77]

So glad it was worth the wait, the effort and the price. A great test for the human intellect ❤

[@williamtomkiel8215]

all true but if the ice caps don't get re-frozen, - oopsies!

[@unrealuknow864]

We have yet to look in a billion different directions at such a distance. We are going to find so much more as time goes on.

[@adamhughes4442]

"We are going to find so much more as time goes on" You think!

[@johnjeffreys6440]

Recently, the universe was 13.7 billion years old and now it’s 13.8 billion years old. my, how time flies.

[@tyroneallen7857]

@@johnjeffreys6440 the universe does not run on math. The universe runs on time. The best description for time in mathematics is the infinity sign.

[@johnjeffreys6440]

@@tyroneallen7857 it was just a joke to illustrate the vanity of science

[@Swat369]

you got that backwards. @@tyroneallen7857

[@robertgeranis4552]

I LOVE IT! Science keeps challenging us. Way to go JW team!

[@minimanadam]

I find it hilarious we think we can see the edge of the universe lolol

[@stephanierivers197]

We can't an I dont think we will ever get to see it not in this life span at least how 🤷🏽‍♀️when the sky has no ending it goes on ,on ,on an onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnjeshhhhh an on 🤦🏽‍♀️

[@rorydidelin4770]

No scientist says we see the edge of the universe. But we do have limits and that limit is called the observable universe.

[@fukhue8226]

When will the Universities start repaying all of the Student Loans that were wasted on a completely incorrect education?

[@Shin_Igami666]

The more we learn. The more we knew nothing.

[@MikeJw-je4xk]

Nothing? No. There is always more to know. The scientific method has led to amazing success and knowledge.

[@victorgrainger895]

What an excellent video and explanation of the latest observations. Thank you

[@notyourroad]

This supports my theory that the universe is much much older than we thought. Such as the universe has just always existed.

[@urbugnmetoday3183]

Correct, we know nothing

[@jkoorts]

If it always existed that means there is no decay, but everywhere I look I see decay.

[@notyourroad]

​@@jkoorts decay as we know it.

[@NinjasBeTrippin]

@@againstnationalismliarsand2615 ahh good old atheist and their arrogance. Sprouting their beliefs as facts but the second somebody brings up god y’all cry and cry about people pushing their beliefs on you. But here an atheist is trying to spread their atheism as fact when you know absolutely nothing about the origin of our universe. I should point out neither do I but I’m not arrogant enough to sprout my beliefs as facts. You atheists don’t believe in god but you sure do believe in an insane amount of luck 😂. Sure the earth just happens to spin far enough from the sun and moon in the absolute perfect spot to sustain life. Do you know the odds of that happening by “chance” ? Play the lottery if you think you’re that lucky.

[@JeffMcDuffie72MeridianGate]

Its trillions of years old

[@BigDogRidgeback]

It may be old to us but time may not exist to the universe.

[@JakeMcClake2]

This brings up the question, what makes us believe we know this? What makes us believe we know the age of the universe? What makes us believe we know how far back we are looking?

[@urbugnmetoday3183]

Narcissism

[@CB500Xoo7]

You have the right approach in the sense of questioning everything. Science now is in shock and doubling down on big bang burying heads in the sand. How foolish to think we have all the answers. Paradigm shift is in order and a lot more humility.

[@Bawlswhet]

@@CB500Xoo7 No one claimed to know the answer. The Big Bang Theory is just that, a THEORY. Theories are something thought about to try to prove and have yet to be proven. This is why newer technology is created and used to find out more information. It's still better than the theory that there is a man sitting on a cloud in the sky.

[@thatdude5456]

​@@CB500Xoo7science is not burying it's head in the sand, science is supposed to evolve as new data is found. New data has to be questioned and tested thoroughly to prove that there is not human, mechanical, or some other kind of error in the readings.

[@BatMan-oe2gh]

@@CB500Xoo7 You know why they call it the Big Bang Theory, because it is a Theory, not a fact. That is the whole purpose of JWST, to help with seeing if the Theory is correct or needs to be adjusted. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity was a Theory until proven to be correct, so now it is a law. Scientists have an idea, write a paper explaining their Theory and then do experiments to either prove or disprove it. All you have done is Shown that you really don't understand science.

[@totalyup3578]

i bet if you're floating in space, everything would look like its been distorted like looking through a glass bottle, and each galaxy looked like a glass ball, warping another galaxy behind it. very pretty and sparkly.

[@tyroneallen7857]

Space is science fiction human imagination. Humans only float in space and their imagination. We are in a solar system. The solar system is filled with light. There is no space. Our star the sun is in the galaxy. The galaxy is filled with light, there is no space. Time is the fabric of the universe time is energy. The universe is filled with light. There is no space. Do the math. Infinity sign we did the math for you. There is no space. Check the semantics. Logic! Time, light, and sound work simultaneously as nature. We experience time through our star the sun.

[@spacejamzyt6461]

I have always assumed the universe was infinite in age, our part of the universe may not have always been here but the greater universe is probably eternal. The options are either a universe appearing from nothingness or the universe is infinite in age and both options sounds crazy but if I was to choose the one option that sounded more logical I have to go with the infinite universe. Perhaps the idea of nothingness is only a human concept but not actually a real thing. Recently I have also been thinking a lot about simulations and the idea that the universe is a simulation is very intriguing to me because we create simulations all the time, constantly improving them and adding new technology like AI, is it really that hard to believe that one day we will make a simulation so realistic that the NPCs in the simulation believe themselves to be real? The brain is essentially just a biological computer that uses electricity. All I know is existence is really weird if you think about it.

[@TheSteveSteele]

Recent observations of distant supernova have suggested that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating or speeding up due to red shift. If dark energy plays a significant role in the evolution of the universe, then in all likelihood the universe will continue to expand forever, until there’s a cold death, or a “Big Chill.” That means that the universe will slowly cool as it expands until eventually it is unable to sustain any life. If this is the case, an infinite universe would not make sense.

[@davidbanner6230]

@spacejamzyt6461 : Well if it exists it has to be infinite, does it not? The FACT that it is there means that it - in some form - was always there? Alpha & Omega.... But I'm sure the Universe feels much better that you asked?

[@Ed-pl9ik]

I also feel the universe has been around forever. Our knowledge of universe is similar to the days when humans thought Earth was flat. We are just a newborn to the universe.

[@TheSteveSteele]

@@Ed-pl9ik Our understanding of the universe is still ongoing but it’s way beyond the days of the flat earth belief. That wasn’t based on science. Once science was applied, the true nature of our solar system was revealed.

[@TheSteveSteele]

@@davidbanner6230 To say that the universe is infinite, you’d have to have some hypothesis at least to back that up. An infinite universe really doesn’t have a model or an explanation. What would cause an infinite universe?

[@garyfilmer382]

The amazing JWST sees the astonishing images, and says, ‘here they are, now deal with it’, lol!😂 It’s going to be a whole new event horizon (pardon the pun!) in our understanding of the universe. Great video, thank you.

[@Jason2003]

It's almost like we don't know wtf is really happening.

[@tyroneallen7857]

What really is happening is time. The theory of everything is time. Time is energy. We experience time through our star the sun. Our star the sun is really happening.

[@Bawlswhet]

You're right. We don't know. If we did, we wouldn't still be investigating with new telescopes and technology. They're up there just trying to prove theories.

[@Tofi_ytchannel]

You sure don't

[@Jason2003]

@@Tofi_ytchannel 😆

[@concernedcitizen780]

I still think the earth is flat

[@johnmoreno4212]

I'm betting on the new age of the universe as 33 billion years...and counting

[@therealcirclea762]

"I'm betting on the new age of the universe as 33 billion years...and counting" Nothing prevents the quantum effects that scientists have been saying could "restart the universe after heat death" from happening _now._ Effects could be localized. It could be _far_ older, and our view just the "local Big Bang."

[@Patrick1985McMahon]

any stars you see that look older than the big bang would be stars on the other side of the center of the big bang. being that the bang expanded in all directions that would mean you would have to see stars on the other side of the central point.

[@ASmithee67]

James Webb is a success! It's overturning the established view and opening up science fields to innovation.

[@d0nKsTaH]

Universe has been everlasting. There have been many "big bangs".... Some create stars and solar systems... Some create galaxies... Some create galaxy clusters...

[@arklat]

Just because a star is far away, doesn't make it old. The light is old, due to the distance traveled. When light we see now was emitted, the star must have been young. Now, it has been gone for millions of years.

[@19TheFallen]

Yeah, it's the light itself that is that age......No doubt, that star is now.......stardust.......

[@davidconner-shover51]

@@19TheFallenor a hunk of iron

[@jnb22019]

The point isn't that the star is that old now, they know the star is long gone The point is that the star produced that light at a time when previously thought not possible.

[@asianartist1]

they're trying :p@@jnb22019

[@arklat]

@jnb22019 Great point! I find the cosmos incredible. I wish I knew the whole factual creation story. I know all we see and and experience first hand, did not create itself.

[@davend530]

The influence of Sagittarius A on how we measure time cannot be discounted. With the current model I feel it is logical that a field preceeded what is now considered the big bang. The field was like an exiton tracing every possible path light will travel. Then the bang the field eventually cooled into the cosmic web. CMB is proof that this could be possible. I have always said the universe is 14.2 billion years old but welcome being disproven.

[@johnhodge6610]

The Doppler shift model of galaxy redshift is finally being questioned with this data. The Doppler model has had an ignored, major problem for a long time with Arp's suggestions and the unexplained observation of periodic redshift.

[@baby-turtle]

It's not confusing at all. The Universe doesn't have an age. It has always existed. It creates itself out of itself. It creates us out of itself, as we create out of ourselves.

[@charlesbadrock]

Awesome keep it coming!

[@willgoodwin2560]

Since gravitational lensing is a real thing, so also must be gravitational refraction and reflection. Those distant galaxy observations might be spectral-skewed or simply objects much closer than they appear. It is also naïve to assume that time-space relativity is constant outside of our local gravity well. The universe flies by much faster when you are close to a black hole.

[@audience7264]

Gravitational lensing is supported by math, & by evidence, & practical applications. Your postulation of refraction & reflection is nonsense speculation.

[@willgoodwin2560]

@@audience7264 Something that cannot be observed either does not exist or we lack the necessary tool to make the observation. Good and bad ideas are critical to science, since the scientific process is to determine which is which. Speculation, sensible or otherwise, brings fresh ideas into the light of discernment which may otherwise have been lost in the darkness of complacency.

[@audience7264]

@@willgoodwin2560 instead of trying to sound smart, go study it some more & actually be smart. The warping of space is not like a mirror, & it’s effect on time near a black hole is not to speed it up. A simple google search will reveal this.

[@user-tc9pb3rv4d]

Nope. The age of the light coming to us is determined by its "Red Shift"... markers in the spectrum of the light are shifted to the red end of the spectrum. Even if the light was reflected or refracted it would still mean the light is hundreds of millions of years older than it should be. We're not looking at the positions the light comes from, we're looking at the frequencies in the light itself to make such measurements. If our understanding of "Red Shift" is wrong, the entire "Big Bang" theory collapses because it is "Red Shift" that proves the expansion of space.

[@greenmachine949]

I don't think we'll ever know the exact age of the universe. Time was created back then as well and I don't think early time can be measured by today's time standards.

[@OfentseMwaseFilms]

Oh yes we can😁

[@davidlancaster4476]

@@OfentseMwaseFilms explain.

[@TalkingGIJoe]

Hillarious! Destroying paradigms one picture at a time... gotta love that settled science!

[@darkoz1692]

The only ones that have said the science is settled are climate activists and Covid vaccine proponents.

[@poboyfloyd]

if you think that's how science works, then you don't know the first thing about science... facts are only facts if there is no other information to cause you to question them

[@Bawlswhet]

@@poboyfloyd This! People seem to forget what a theory is.

[@brokenbiker09]

Read Faster than the Speed of Light by Joao Magueijo published in 2003. This also has a theory which looks at light changing speed over time. I need to read it again to see how this observation fits that physicist's theory.

[@cloudzero2049]

Maybe the problem is that everyone keeps treating time as a constant, or some similar issue.

[@terrencemcginnis7221]

Nothing is "fixed". It's all relative and in flux. There is only NOW. "Past" and "future" are constructs of the mind projected into the now. Maybe consciousness imposes the notion of time by arbitrarily choosing or creating relative points, (events) to measure "time", (the space between those events). It helps us make sense of things and is convenient, but might just be something we use to construct a consensus reality. People say "the sun comes up in the east", and it sure looks that way, and is a convenient explanation of what it looks like is happening, but the sun is not rising, the earth is spinning. My point is that our current notions of time may simply be the way we percieve, conceive, or experience it, rather than how it actually is. It's all process "occurring" in the eternal now, but our minds perceive "events" as existing on some constant we call time. I don't think time "exists" without consciousness. We may be making it all up for convenience sake. Maybe it doesn't exist on its own. (Just my 2-puffs-on-a-joint theory).

[@grantduke318]

If red shift really is miscalculated, isn’t there ways to prove this out on closer stars within our own galaxy to stars in say the closest galaxy to us? You could compare the error with more precise distance estimates.

[@skydorn4973]

We already did it many times with Objects which are closer and found a few differents in hubble constant and Measurements.

[@pahtar7189]

We can't use anything within the Milky Way or even the local group of galaxies as they have motions related to local gravitational attractions. We look at groups of galaxies where the average of a group is compared to other groups.

[@muffettcarroll4485]

where is the sculpture pictured at 5:16 found, and what is it called?

[@skehleben7699]

I wondered the same thing!

[@scoobydoobie6147]

Could it be stars from another universe the one that possibly collided with ours causing the great void?

[@tiny4882]

i've often wondered.... why do they believe there was only one big bang? what if the conditions to create a big bang exist and happen numerous times in different locations across the universe?

[@pyrotechnicalbirdman5356]

because the universe is shaped in a pattern that came from one explosion

[@tiny4882]

@@pyrotechnicalbirdman5356 From our point of view, sure, it'd look that way. But what's outside the expanding bubble of the big-bang-explosion? what's beyond the 'leading edge' of the explosion? i'd imagine a big bang would be something similar to a supernova but on a much more massive scale. and the universe just loves to do things similar at varying scales...

[@andreagermani379]

@@tiny4882 The fact is that you should not think of the Big Bang as an explosion IN space, but rather as an explosion OF space, which means there cannot be anything beyond the leading edge of the explosion since space itself is expanding with the universe and it expands everywhere at the same rate. The Big Bang was not an explosion like the ones we see on Earth, it didn't happen in a specific point in space, but everywhere.

[@jonbraid2520]

The big bang theory didn't emerge from one point, it occurred everywhere at once.

[@planeurs]

Actually science doesn't believe that there was only one big bang. And never actually said there was a big bang.

[@SachKiDuniaa]

After big bang many stars moved away more than speed of light and that's why they are presently at 26 billion lighg years.

[@OfentseMwaseFilms]

Not possible. No solid can move faster than/at the speed of light. It’s physically impossible

[@drewb1263]

​@@OfentseMwaseFilmsspace itself can move faster so the space between the stars moves faster than the objects themselves

[@SachKiDuniaa]

There are already many stars discovered by hubble, they were more than 14 billion light years aways brother and after that few scientists believes at the time of big bang few stars went away faster than speed of light. All galaxies are going farther but at different speed and one more thing speed of light phenomenon is not constant in entire universe. Check it please

[@dinrash7613]

If space expanding more then speed of light it called event horizon. Now with current Hubble constant it is calculated to be around 45 billion light years in each direction. Scientists think that most of universe is behind it.

[@janmartensson9634]

We will never be able to find out how old the universe is, only how far away other galaxies and star systems are from us. And that in our way of measuring. Is a meter really a meter? just because we say here that this is a meter does not mean that for residents of another system it is. We make it simple, an identical solar system as ours, but with the difference that everything is 50% smaller. So for them a meter is a meter, but for us it would only be half a meter. The same applies to time. We have put numbers on what counts as time for us. Mathematics is not universal just because we want it to be.

[@Oliveir51]

Is time the problem ? As well as our assumptions and simplifications. Including red shift. We take into account only speed but we measured photon interaction with electron leads to a small red shift

[@jfhoward8264]

It is hard to believe that this Webb scope has not run into something or has been hit by some things during its journey through space.

[@l.b.9567]

You don't understand the size of the universe. The probability of a small telescope being hit is billions to one

[@MLGxBXRxPRO]

You know how rare things coliding in space are. Think about this if the andromeda galaxy ran right into our milky way pretty much nothing would collide. Thats how vast the distance between objects is in space.

[@Regularsarikas]

Space is insanely vast. There is such an enormous amount of distance between any object in our solar system and all of that even pales in comparison to the amount of empty space between our solar system's outer edge and the next star system. Our distance from the sun averages 149.9 million kilometers. You can traverse our earth's diameter 3750 times before you would have reached that same distance.

[@landspeed2015]

Also, the telescope is in an orbit around the sun, about 1 million miles from earth. Once it arrived there, it stopped travelling, so the risk of anything impacting it is possible, but remote. NASA parked it where it is for this reason, amongst others.

[@redherring9444]

ask Voyagers 1 & 2 , 46 years in space ?

[@dosidicusgigas1376]

If the big bang happened around 14b years ago and a 26b yo star was discovered; do any of you guys think the expansion of the universe could account for the star being at such a far distance? Since time and distance are relative, it would mean that the galaxies expansion moved the star far enough, it could be a population 1 (1st generation) star born maybe 18 billion years old. It takes light so long to travel across those distances in additon to the expansion of our universe. I still found the video fascinating and if these new theories are correct, it would be amazing.

[@Bawlswhet]

I was thinking that the big bang is basically the centre of the universe, right? we can't move as fast as light according to laws of physics. Can that star not be on the other side from the big bang's origin?

[@dosidicusgigas1376]

@Bawlswhet that makes sense, & correct matter cant move faster than light. The space between matter does expand faster than light, so if the big bang happened at the center of our universe it makes sense to assume that the star detected would be on the other side of the observable universe, at least relative to us

[@therealcirclea762]

@@dosidicusgigas1376 "that makes sense, & correct matter cant move faster than light." That is the accepted view at them moment, and Newtonian, although quantum effects seem to by-pass that right? "Spooky action..." "The space between matter does expand faster than light," This baffles me. Matter _effects_ space by curving it, explaining bending light, consumption by black-holes, etc, but in this explanation _space effects matter._ This seems to contradict the cause-effect relation doesn't it? Not to mention, doesn't that effectively cause matter to be "moving through space" at a speed greater than light? And it's not a case of "relative to us." Local space "expanding at a rate faster than light" would cause that local matter to be traveling faster than light wouldn't it? Maybe I'm way off here, but its like a number line in my head. If A is a body at one, and space has the value of 0-1, if space doubles in volume, wouldn't body A be at 2 _at the rate at which the expansion occurs?_ So if that rate is _c_ , wouldn't that mean that body A was "moved" at _c?_ Like I said somewhere else, I bang nails. It just doesn't make sense.

[@poopjeans1135]

You missed the part where Zwicky proved the red shift is caused by light losing energy as it travels such vast distances, meaning there is credible evidence that galactic expansion is NOT occurring.

[@waynebellringer5941]

We cannot get our heads around infinity or forever,i think the universe has no age and is just is and was and will always be.

[@machine_daddy]

What exactly exploded during the Big Bang, and where did the material that exploded come from? Where did the empty space come from, also?

[@klaymistic4810]

One thing these scientists are not taking into consideration is some parts of space may actually be denser in time, which would also stretch the waves of light and make things seem older than they are.

[@NilakSingaqti]

They already have the general theory of relativity to calculate mass in space like gravitional lensing so if they find something to disprove or verify the star in question then they won't have a problem announcing it

[@NilakSingaqti]

They already have the general theory of relativity to calculate mass in space like gravitational lensing so if they find something to disprove or verify the star in question then they won't have a problem announcing it

[@user-ld7wx8sh8h]

What if the star is not from our universe but one adjacent to ours?

[@peterg5383]

Maybe we should put up a fence

[@deealex1402]

i think there will always going to be things we don't know about universe and humans. i always believed that all this is a circle, we die,our universe dies, and new is born everytime, its endless. there have been life before us and before them. i think its just circulates forever. we will never truly know everything about the secrets of universe.

[@terrytorres5026]

If you using the redshift for distance measurement. You have to take into account the universe's expansion. Much Faster now

[@angelstrong792]

That means that our Universe is as old as the discovered star. Nice video, thanks for sharing & Godspeed!

[@jeffreyrigby2387]

That means we were wrong and that star is the farthest found SO FAR. IMO, there was no big bang and the universe is only beginning to be understood.

[@johnjeffreys6440]

recently, the universe was 13.7 billion years old and now it’s 13.8 billion years old. my, how time flies.

[@JungleJargon]

The redshift is from light that originates in much more massive galaxies that is redshifted as it leaves the massive galaxy and it's only slightly blue shifted as the light enters our much smaller galaxy where we are.

[@JungleJargon]

@magaman1402 You don't understand GR.

[@audience7264]

Nonsense. Go back to school.

[@JungleJargon]

@@audience7264 You are the one that doesn’t know general relativity.

[@audience7264]

@@JungleJargon redshifting/blueshifting has nothing to do the objects’ relative mass, and everything to do with the objects’ relative motion. Your idiotic statement only reveal how ignorant you are.

[@truusbuskruit]

The 13.8 billion light-years is only our technical limitation. Scholars think they know everything, but the more we know, the more we DON'T know. And believe me, as technology develops, you will see that the existence of our universe will also become older. We are still in our infancy as far as development is concerned, we don't know more than we do.

[@nancydelu4061]

Remember, this is LOOKBACK time. This is not exactly the same as "age."

[@karlostj4683]

What if prior to the Big Bang, there were lots of galaxies that collapsed into the singularity that became the Big Bang - except there were some galaxies that didn't become part of the singularity and had been formed from the previous incarnation of the universe?

[@stillstanding6031]

I like your theory. It makes common sense and cosmic sense and ultimately, the singular truth:The universe has no beginning and no end. As humans, we can't wrap our brains around that. But the universe is not of our making.

[@InfiniteSkiegh]

I still think the "universe" as we define it started with the big bang. My idea is that the "universe" started as a sigularity and that these "older than they should be galaxies" are remnants of other "universes" that expanded into their "cold death" and wandering the "multiversal sea of dark matter". They were attracted before "the big bang" expansion by the original singularity's nearly infinite gravity. They eventually were pulled to where we see them now since they were already on course before the destablization of the sigularity and it's expansion. That's just my hypothesis, though. But I think that "spacetime" is much older than we expect (likely even infinite) and that our "universe" is still fairly young.

[@mudover11]

Agree

[@prioris55555]

@@mudover11 mainstream astronomers now have to rewrite new lies for you

[@ronwood7029]

You will never understand God work

[@InfiniteSkiegh]

@ronwood7029 There is no "God". Hush. Even if one does exist, it won't be any "God" we created here on earth. It'd have created the universe and not gave a damn beyond that. Believe in your religion. I'm not here to shit on it, honestly, but don't bug me about it. The only "God" is the universe that birthed us in my eyes.

[@dnevs79]

​@@InfiniteSkieghso you are saying there is a God.. if one says the Universe is God then it is an acknowledgement of God and a admission that you don't know HIM. Which some come late..hope you know Him be yond "Universe" I am both a Christian and a lover of science...but I do not subscribe to these misleading conversations/theories concerning the big bang (doesn't make sense), I don't subscribe to evolution (doesn't make sense) I don't subscribe to spontaneous life ( doesn't make sense), and so on and so on... I do believe in observable and testable science. God is real (if you want to call Him Universe) Science is real The two do not disagree unless one tries to put them against one another and make them into something they are not.

[@nathanwahl9224]

I kinda wondered about this for a long time. What if there are interactions that can also lower photon energies minuscule amounts, but in the aggregate over billions of years travel start to add up; also causing a red shift, but not due to Doppler. Plus the younger universe was denser, and hotter than it is now, so it makes sense that the amount of interactions would be different and have changed. At work I could clearly see the impact of Compton Scattering, Pair Production and the Photoelectric Effect lowering the energy of photons. Well, space isn't really a complete void, there are lots and lots of things running around out there to interact with. Neutrinos, other photons, dust, gas. For Pair Production to occur, as an example, a gamma doesn't have to hit a nucleus, but only approach close to one (and have the minimum 1.022MeV energy of course), forming the electron/positron pair, so direct hits on something may not even be necessary to impact photon energies.

[@seasoda3319]

NERD

[@lockandloadlikehell]

I saw some Compton scattering back in 1988 when Rolling 60s and Pirus went at it.

[@johneagle4384]

Pretty good video. Thank you.

[@bungalowbill3409]

I'd have to say that the scientists seem to be basing their calculations off the universe expanding linearly rather than radially... If the universe is expanding from an epicenter, then looking at anything beyond that epicenter would mean that those objects are moving away from you like 2 cars passing each other in opposite directions rather than moving in the same direction having originated at the same point like 1 car passing another in the fast lane...

[@UnitedLoyalist]

Is the Big Bang created the entire universe, as we see it, won't it have been bright enough for us to still see it today? Who decided which direction to look in?

[@machfront]

The over-simplified answer right now is: We don’t yet have telescopes to look that far (which quite literally also means that far back in time). As to “where”….well, if and when we are able to ‘see’ the birth of our universe from that single point , it itself would be the ‘entirety’ of our universe. Thusly, it would be visible no matter where we point the telescope.

[@doncherf2610]

Yes I can imagine such a star especially when astronomers are swearing that stars are moving further and further apart because the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light which is a tale straight out of the minds of science fiction authors.

[@ThresholdGaming]

And yet true.

[@pyrotechnicalbirdman5356]

Political science major speaking here

[@pauljeavons8878]

It's either older than the current estimate or there is possible error from the current star. I guess it needs more stars to be found that show this age. The more stars showing this age the more confident of the basis of age measurement. There maybe phenomena that corrupts the age measurement basis out there. However the big bang might turn out to be the big loop. Concider this ...what about if we started discovering identical stars in different parts of the universe. Mirrors unlikely .. time is against us.

[@banneduser978]

The universe is far far far older than 13.5 billion years old I just want to say one little telescope can't look through the entire universe.

[@tyroneallen7857]

Exactly!

[@creationmuse2313]

I would say new.🤔

[@TeardropLabs]

No, but it can look through most of it!

[@samuelzulu9731]

Not quite@@TeardropLabs

[@banneduser978]

@@TeardropLabs I'm not too sure my friend no-one really knows about the true size of the universe, another words the scale of the universe is unimaginable, The telescope can only view the bright sections of the Universe, which means 99.9% percent of the Universe is not even visible.

[@brandonlee93]

It could be that the universe has always existed and what we call the “big bang” was really one of many mediocre sized bangs in random parts of the universe.

[@pahtar7189]

If that were the case, we would observe matter from a previous or neighboring Bang, but we don't - every galaxy we see at any distance is moving away from us, and the farther away they are, the faster they are retreating.

[@germanjake1288]

Ah i dont know where it was but another KZbin Video discussed the probability that time was moving much faster in the early universe in the early expansion phase. Thus explaining why the Universe (or at least the center galaxies) from our perspective can be even oder than the 26 Billion Years.

[@surendrakverma555]

Very good explanation. Thanks 🙏🙏🙏

[@doncherf2610]

Yes, Paul Dirac is who I read about in the 1970s and whose theory on light I began to follow. However, I recall the theory suggesting that light aged not merely lost energy. And as it aged while coursing through the universe, it also slowed. I always thought that would be easy to prove or disprove by using the same method to calculate the speed of light at 186,283 miles (~300,000 km) per second to calculate the light coming from different sources in the universe such as the sun, alpha centauri, the Andromeda Galaxy. If the speed of light from those disparate sources were different, that would be enough to prove that light ages or at least changes over time which would throw the whole redshift idea out of favor with astronomers. I have always been very against the Big bang theory because it relies on a god to initiate it. Also, it strains the imagination that all the matter in the universe came from a singularity, a single point, that exploded and created everything. That theory had God written all over it. And my universe didn't have room for a god. So I gravitated toward the steady-state universe theory while everyone around me stayed with the unrealistic theory of the Big Bang. The idea of matter not being created or destroyed made more sense to me than all matter in the universe being created in an instant at the beginning of time. Of course, that meant the universe was infinite not only in size but in age. But for me, that was easier to believe than dispersion of all matter in the universe from a big bang.

[@MyMawi]

great point

[@audience7264]

Such nonsense. For light, & all energy state, time is always at a big fat zero. It doesn’t “age.” Such is Einstein’s theory. Good luck trying to prove him wrong.

[@pitrek121g]

Big bang doesn't imply it happened in one point. You need to read about the current knowledge about the big bang.

[@randyb726]

Once there was a star a great star greater than any man can imagine and it was spinning and creating micro novas and super novas Spewing it’s matter into a vacuum it was being pulled from beyond the edge of the universe and I believe that’s how the cosmos was created

[@InfiniteSkiegh]

Sounds like you're just describing the sigularity that we originally believe to be the big bang, friend. Only difference is that the singularity would have been infinitesimally small, but with the density of all the things we see now in it. Though, I believe that there's more than our universe's singularity out there and that they pull on our universe even now. Wish I could post pics here, because I have a drawing I made of this concept.

[@xizilionyizzexeliqer3897]

This is interesting explains why things are super slow rather than super fast exploding singularity big bang.

[@constancapeneda884]

​@@InfiniteSkiegh😮

[@shea4827]

I said it before and I'll say it again the Big bang just never added up!

[@brunkonjaa]

It seems more than likely that there is actually no bottom limit for the size of matter (with better technology we will be able to probe "field" for example) and it is actually quite logical in itself because you simply cannot have "one" which is made of nothing. At the same time, there is no reason for universe to have upper limit in size or stwrting point too. And that is quite logical too because again you simply cannot have "none" and then "one". You cant have an edge of the universe, or begining (both beginning and an end require "more" in order to be beginning and an end, since beginning and an end fall into domain of concepts which depend on their surroundings). You can only have multiple ways in which matter/galaxies/clusters arrange themselves, so you can end up with trully uniform and endless universe or trully endless but different in parts universe. But there is only one. What we have observed/measured so far in terms of distance is probably less than millionth of milionth of 1%.

[@AP-st1li]

I love how people refer to the "Big Bang" as if it's true lol. Guarantee it is completely false. Literally EVERYTHING we think we know about the universe has proven to be wrong. Truth is we don't know anything.

[@prioris55555]

mainstream astronomers now have to rewrite new lies for the sheep

[@bricks-ls1nm]

The universe has no beginning nor ending just like numbers.

[@cptcosmo]

They think redshift is related to distance and time, but it could also be effected by light moving through different regions of the universe that have different physical properties than our local region of the universe, much as light is defracted/refracted from moving through different medium interfaces (air/water, etc.)...

[@ot9180]

Gupta knows it all, like my father in law. My thinking on the other hand is that fitting models to data is very often flawed and seldom reveals the true nature of generative systems. Long live Gupta! Great mustache as well.

[@kokkeeboon]

Genesis 1 is still the only truth that has stood the test of time.

[@unrealuknow864]

It's amazing people still believe in that.

[@adamhughes4442]

Utter bollocks!

[@brianmurphy767]

Truth hahaha. I needed a good laugh

[@poboyfloyd]

the Bible is a metaphor

[@urbugnmetoday3183]

“I only have one question, have you ever been to Uranus? “

[@Realnatur3]

A very good news........❤👍👍

[@tenaciousbt1]

I have a theory that lines up with what we know. Let me explain. Think of being underwater. If you were a deep diver, your lungs would be compressed significantly by the increase in pressure from the water. The more shallow you are the more your lungs can expand. In the early universe when it was much more compressed, it would have been much more difficult for objects with mass to curve the much denser spacetime, meaning less time dilation. As the universe expands/accelerates the galaxies nearer to the edge are in much thinner spacetime allowing significant time dilation relative to our position. This would explain how they can be further along than we expect. They have experienced more time relative to us.

[@robertanderson5092]

By my estimation and understanding of general relativity, when the universe was younger, it was denser and time moved slower.

[@jaredmiller8740]

I love how we keep assuming we know anything at all about the universe while observing it from earth. We won't know much of anything until we actually go out and explore the universe. Even if we explore and study for a few million years we will still know near nothing.

[@ruffryder8125]

We still haven't fully explored Earth yet so I agree with you. Maybe it's to complex of a subject for humans to ever fully understand.

[@redwolf7227]

I am just curious...hypothetically speaking of course...if the whole universe were to have been popped into existence say in one solar day...just like miracle instant like...what would we expect to see say when it came to the maturity of stars and galaxies etc when the JWT looks out into deep space? Anything like what it has been seeing? Just curious???

[@machfront]

Super, super, over-simplified and quick and easy answer? It would take modern science (by modern, I mean over the last century), not too much effort at all to ‘balance’ understandings of time and distance of stars and galaxies of varying distances…to deduce that they all were the same age. Suffice it to say, it’s something that would have been long discovered by now.

[@machfront]

That is if you mean, as I understand you mean…that the whole observable universe as we’ve long seen and still se today popped into existence whole-cloth as we see it today. Interesting question, as every question is. But yes….if all the galaxies etc popped or blossomed nigh instantly at some point….again, as I said prior, we’d basically, by now already, have deduced such.

[@redwolf7227]

@@machfront I wonder only because I have been told that certain assumptions have been made about the nature of the universe not because of the observable science but for “philosophical” preferences/reasons. Perhaps my focus should not be on the data as much as it should be on its interpretation?

[@guidodenbroeder935]

Instead of smaller, they may be closer than a constant redshift suggests.

[@You-are-right-but]

Could it be the James Webb telescope is glitching? Have you tried turning it off and back on again?

[@JohnT1050]

Fascinating news!!

[@dicerosautismambient4894]

Could it be a false redshift that may make it tool older than it really is?

[@martinriley106]

If the redshift theory is wrong we may have calculated the distance of other stars and galaxies incorrectly too? So they may actually be nearer to our solar system than we realised?

[@WillisVision]

With the ever increasing expansion of our universe, isn't it possible that the said star originated closer and has since been shifted by the expansion? If so, that may not change the age of the universe.

[@davidlancaster4476]

it sounds like you are clutching at straws and are desperate to believe in old science.

[@EJayMD-11]

This is exactly what happened. This is messing all kinds of things up.

[@sargepent9815]

Also, these mere 6 "impossible galaxies" are from a single very small point in the sky from a deep field exposure. There are likely many trillions of these "impossible" objects but we just never had the ability to see that far

[@aarone9000]

I can hardly wait to see how it all ends.

[@ahmedbyah]

If we suppose that there exists another universe close to ours and older than it, which has its own laws, and that the expansion of the two universes has led to a partial overlap, how can we distinguish the elements of each universe?

[@montyjohnn2826]

So a multiversal incursion?

[@ahmedbyah]

Why not, because theorists do not exclude the possibility of multiverses@@montyjohnn2826

[@user-tc9pb3rv4d]

Well, considering "universe" means basically "everything in existence" it is logically not possible for two "universes" to "overlap". If they did, they would just be two parts of "the universe".

[@johnmoreno4212]

Lysergic-level awesome!

[@watchhorrorxtv]

Everything we see cosmically and even on earth geologically is everything cycles, with transformative phases. Big bang cuz just be an event in a universe birthed from another universe

[@elinoreberkley8221]

science is always changing😮

[@cjgparas3]

So taķe the previous value, times two. Such a scientific method.

[@riffdagg6701]

The one thing that confuses me the most, is we are measuring everything from us being at the centre, and or the telescope being at the centre.

[@mikeyw1702]

Yeah I see what you mean .. but if the universe is infinite there is no centre. Wherever you happen to be, you’re at the ‘centre’ aren’t you ?

[@riffdagg6701]

@@mikeyw1702 not with the way that they explain it, because the bang would have to be a central point and it's all pushing outward.

[@Tofi_ytchannel]

@@riffdagg6701 That's a wrong understanding of spacetime. There is no "center" and "outward" at the moment of the big bang as there was no space-time "before" that. Which means that whichever way you start looking, you're looking at the past and if you go long enough in any direction, at the end of it there is always the big bang. This is something we know because the cosmological background radiation is always the same, no matter which direction we're trying.

[@riffdagg6701]

@@Tofi_ytchannel ahh appreciate 👍🏼

[@qpr543]

Gives NASA a chance to ask funding for another telescope.😂

[@pyrotechnicalbirdman5356]

I'd like that

[@guser7140]

We must appreciate what we already have and that is our beautiful planet called Earth full with life. Don't really understand why they never turn that telescope towards the earth and show us the gem we live on and too show to everyone that the earth is round and not flat and end that discussion once for all.Please explain,thanks!

[@fuzzyjax]

So where did it all begin? What was the first energy. I suppose that’s the question. If our universe was born then is it the only one? Does it it keep evolving or will it,like all things we understand,die? It truly boggles the mind.

[@JayTor2112]

Do not doubt, do not question!!

[@realtruth8162]

Could someone explain to me? That star STILL remain "alive", or do we just see their light? Some say - the star isn´t dead - and other say - you´re seeing only the light (maybe the star gone away billions of years before).

[@adamhughes4442]

It could well be the light from a star long dead, which has only just reached us.

[@realtruth8162]

@@adamhughes4442 Why do some people say that the star could still be "alive"? I really dodn´t understand this point

[@adamhughes4442]

@@realtruth8162 Dead or alive, the light will eventually reach us...either from its constant burning or its eventual supernova.

[@poboyfloyd]

no one says the star is still in existence, if they do, they are misinformed... the light from the sun takes 8 minutes to reach Earth, for example... if the Sun's light stopped shining, we wouldn't know about it for 8 minutes, we would still see the light until then@@realtruth8162

[@Vv20vV]

No one will ever know the answer to how old the universe is, since we are unable to see the border to where it ends. Science is in such a rush to give a definitive answer to the unknown. It’s okay to say we just don’t know, nor will we ever. But since Man is behind science, ego will always be a hinderance.

[@DrWondertainment821]

I read this title in the professor's voice from Futurama.

[@muffettcarroll4485]

lol, you made me go back and check title, and you're right, I can hear him say it!