Incredible New Evidence for Time Dilation In the Distant Universe

[@Nemo67577]

@Anton Petrov; I’m an old lady; i can’t add 2+2 without a calculator; but quantum physics has always fascinated me; i could listen to you (and Dr. Sagan) talk about it for hours. Thank you for being here everyday, Anton; i know it can’t be easy. You’re a good man, and a wonderful teacher. Here’s an apple: 🍎 Good journey to you fellow traveler. 🤘😎🤘

[@Mboogy]

🤘😎🤘

[@c0ltz450]

Rock on 😎

[@johnmckown1267]

I'm 71. I find them very interesting. I also like Science Asylum with "Nick Lucid".

[@gusvalour]

Age is but a number, stay curious!

[@jonharrison3114]

@@gusvalour💀

[@ridethecurve55]

My boss has somehow been able to call upon time dilation when I'm there.

[@dennycote6339]

That's how he prevents you from getting your raise on time...

[@corydemeray7594]

lol same. bastards

[@9and7]

@@dennycote6339 I ¢ what you did there...

[@Khannea]

Billy stop watching and commenting on youtube and get back to these invoices.

[@maynardtrendle820]

He's an expansive man.

[@Nick9Three]

I experience time dilation every time I sit down to play video games. Just like that and the day is over and I have Cheeto dust all over my chest.

[@experienceofchris1108]

Gotta take bong hits in between games for extra time dilation effects

[@prof.bizzarro]

Your icon is stunning!

[@mleav2]

That might be time contraction

[@MrGoombasticveryFantastic]

​@experienceofchris1108 some of us do dab hits to experience the full effects of time dilation

[@newt2120]

your pfp got me acting up

[@QueenCousland]

I wish I had someone to share this with. Also, I wish Carl Sagan could see so many mind-blowing discoveries. I'm happy to be alive, but at the same time, I feel like shit, because I can't do anything with this information. Can't even share it. I tried and got the normal reaction: "Okay, but how exactly does this change my life?". I should have learned by now... Anyway, thank you so much for bringing this, Anton.

[@mascot4950]

Odds are you'll eventually find yourself with people that share your interests. Hang in there. :)

[@George-rk7ts]

It affects and changes your life by giving you more appreciation.of how incredible the universe is. In vastly enhances your perspective. How is that changing your everyday life And besides, with physics/astronomy and good music, you don't need drugs, and that saves a hell of a lot of money.

[@QueenCousland]

@@George-rk7ts that's true. Thank you for giving me a new way to look at things.

[@AntonioCastilloGarcia-v5j]

We might be living quite distant from each other, but you are not alone feeling like that. Greetings from Germany wonderful person.

[@TerribleShmeltingAccident]

this is the place in which you can find the community you search for. Unfortunately, in our day to day lives, the chances of meeting someone capable & INTERESTED enough to engage in conversation w/you about these complex/abstract topics isnt very likely (although it does happen.) Thats alright with me though, as i need to maintain balance in all aspects of my life (social is no different.) PS: this comment may sound arrogant to some, i apologize in advance :)

[@dawidwidera1819]

Hello wonderful Anton, this is person. Thank you for bringing distant universe to Earth.

[@G11713]

lol

[@flaparoundfpv8632]

As always, bye bye.

[@q1337]

Hello wonderful Anton, this is person. Thank you for bringing distant universe to Earth.

[@marknovak6498]

When the science is good, it is reconfirmed in different ways.

[@osmosisjones4912]

Science is about source's evidence is pseudo science conspiracy theory

[@mikeb4650]

And whenit does not work, stop adding "repairs" learn from Al!

[@marknovak6498]

@mikeb4650 A lot of new theories are redone and reworked with every failure. However, too many researchers are not able to walk away from an idea they have worked on for years. It may be the source of their funding, no strings, no money.

[@AnthonySmith-x5z]

I know of many scientific fields that are reconfirmed but your nit allowed to discuss. Nobody censures astronomical research for now.

[@mikeb4650]

@@marknovak6498 Like the great thinkers of the renosance, we are bound by what we are taught and forbidden to think outside the normal. FLAT EARTH?

[@jdlech]

Thank goodness for this channel. I keep getting click bait pseudo-sciency channel recommendations that I keep suppressing. I can tell they're click bait just by the titles. "Meteor to hit Earth in 6 months" kind of click bait. It's amazing how many channels there are to suppress. Please - PLEASE never use click baity headlines. Your channel is all the keeps me sane.

[@ronaldturner4849]

Yellowstone eruption imminent! 🌋😵

[@jdlech]

@@ronaldturner4849 "Space alien big foot rapes wife. Now HE's pregnant." -- an actual headline in the National Enquirer way back in the 80s. smh, clickbait has been around since before the internet.

[@tombayliss5494]

I got my degree in physics in 1970 and I decided that I was not going to let the number of times that the Earth circled the Sun put a mental effect on my future. I really put aging in the back of my mind. I now am 79 and had to pause to remember it. I have enjoyed a fine journey and thank our maker !

[@jrr7031]

How much did it ever pay?😂

[@arctic_haze]

Nice. I just tried to explain to someone under a previous video that redshift is really relativistic because the distant quasars get time dilated. There was a Nature Astronomy paper about that in 2023. I'm glad you picked this up (or is it a coincidence?).

[@cef-ym3gb]

Or is it a Time Dilation 🌞

[@bugsy742]

@@cef-ym3gb😂🫡🤝🤝🤝

[@TerribleShmeltingAccident]

i don’t think the word you’re looking for is coincidence (as there is no such thing as coincidence.) in mathematics, we call a coincidence “the solution.” In my personal life i witnessed events that i could not explain….until i heard of Carl Jung’s book “Synchronicities.” Finally i had an adjective to describe what i was witnessing 🤓

[@Ax00001]

@@cef-ym3gb There is a quasar in your closet ooooOOooo

[@EL_DUDERIN0]

@arctic_haze Would the earliest matter detected be even more time-dilated due to the increased density of the primordial universe (due to increased gravity's effect)? I've always been really curious about this and it looks like we're close to answering.

[@HarryONeil]

Hello wonderful Anton! 😊 I am frigging grateful that You are! And doing what you do! You are the best science teacher ever!

[@davesutherland1864]

Actual gps satellites experience time a little bit faster than on the surface of the earth. They do experience time 7 microsecond per day slower due to their orbital speed, but they also experience time 45 microseconds faster by virtue of being in a lower gravitational field, for a net effect of experiencing time 38 microseconds faster than on the surface of the earth.

[@Larry_fm_MD]

they dont experience time any difference that we do on the surface. they're time is the same as our time. yes when you compare the time difference yes there is a difference but they're experiencing it in that time at the same rate we are. and we as an external dont perceive them as moving slower or faster because their time is different. we see them in our time moving at their rate according to our time. and they see us passing by at their rate according to their time. i guarantee you sitting on the planet witnessing something pass by our planet 10% the speed of light as moving fast not slow. but when you checked the clocks at after the pass our time would be more in the future than theirs. but we still "experience" time the exact same way, no faster, no slower. we witness our surroundings on our timeline not theirs. they would not be appearing to move slower.

[@davesutherland1864]

@@Larry_fm_MD To their reference frame yes, time would progress the same. But, from the perspective of our reference frame time progression is different for gps satellites and has to be accounted for to make gps positioning work.

[@Norp-i7m]

Whoa. Cool.

[@rockapedra1130]

Beat me to it ... There are special AND general relativity effects with opposite consequences for satellites. The general relativity effects are larger and win out. Time passes FASTER for the satellites.

[@dmitriy9053]

​​​​​@@rockapedra1130for GPS satellites, not for regular ones. GPS are too distant, so the general relativity wins for them. 36 thousand kilometers is no joke. Plus they are much slower. So, astronauts experience time slower due to much closer proximity to Earth and faster speed. SR effect is more prominent, GR is much less.

[@Lady8D]

I'm autistic with ADHD & have tried to watch this video several times now only to get distracted thinking about how the further away an object is, the slower it appears to be moving. For instanc, you can wave your hand in front of your eyes too fast for your eyes to see each finger but when we watch a jet fly across the sky we can easily make out the details even though it's going _much much faster_ - unless it's too close of course, then it's a blur. I sometimes wonder if this is why the stars _appear_ motionless, they're too far away for us to make out the movement with our naked eye. Idk if this has anything to do with the video, I'm just hoping I'll be able to pay attn to the video now that I've gotten this out. Thank you for your patience while I chased this squirrel

[@RedNomster]

That's just the parallax effect, nothing to do with time dilation :)

[@The_Red_Hand]

The universe just gets weirder and weirder, and I love it.

[@osmosisjones4912]

There a few tech signatures but our own rule it's never aliens creates the Fermi paradox

[@mm-yt8sf]

sometimes i like to try to imagine creatures who can move around at relativistic speeds and aren't fully matter and they get headaches trying to imagine our lives where time seems constant or particles trying to imagine life in a giant universe where things don't just pop in and out of existence but are stable for eons... and trying to live in such a dull world 🙂

[@douglaswilkinson5700]

Einstein explained kinematic time dilation in 1905 and gravitational time dilation in 1915.

[@99guspuppet8]

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ proof that god does not exist and scientists are going to hell and that jesus was no engineer

[@BarderBetterFasterStronger]

Actually, our understanding of the universe is weird and it keeps getting less.

[@mikekolokowsky]

So is this time dilation the reason we are seeing these galaxies that are older than they should be? Like, they’re not really that old, because of time dilation? Or is the Big Bang older? There are brilliant cosmologists, I’m sure they’ve thought of this, but it never seems to enter any discussions that I’ve followed.

[@axle.student]

The BB is theory, the same as inflation. Expansion is complex. "is the Big Bang older" No, but yes because of inflation. Basically the universe (observable part) was very small, but expansion made it very large and because expansion further away appears faster than light and light is slow to travel across an expanding universe and took so much longer to get here it all appears bigger, or maybe is bigger.

[@joebloggs396]

​@@axle.studentSo your answer to that question was no?

[@axle.student]

@@joebloggs396 ""is the Big Bang older" No, but yes ..." ? Unknown is the correct answer.

[@stuartl7761]

No this doesn't explain distant galaxy observations. These sorts of time dilation effects are accounted for in the basic cosmology equations that we've used for around 100 years. We don't really discuss time dilation because it's well understood what general relativity predicts on cosmic scales. Notably that any globally uniform time dilation is simply a redifinition of time coordinates and has no physical reality. What we're talking about in this video is a purely observational effect due to redshift.

[@xantiom]

​@@stuartl7761time dilation is special relativity, not general relativity

[@kirkanos771]

What's fascinating me is that far distant objects we study are objects that could look at us as their far distant objects. Whatever we deduce from them is something affecting us aswell.

[@boriszakharin3189]

Except we're not a supernova or quasar or anything else likely detectable at such distances

[@feynmanschwingere_mc2270]

Albert Einstein is, by far, the greatest scientist of all time. He created an original proof of the Pythagorean Theorem at the age of 10; read and understand Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Kant's Critique of Practical Reason by the age of 11, taught himself integral and differential calculus by the age of 14, wrote his first scientific paper (that was published) by the age of 16. He had perfect scores on the math and physics sections of the Entry Exam to the Zurich Polytechnic in Switzerland (named the ETH), but due to poor scores on French and history he wasn't accepted that year into the ETH. However, it's important to note that the youngest the ETH accepted any student was 18 and Einstein took the exam at 16 years old. Before the age of 23 Einstein had received the entire foundations of Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics from first principles, a Herculean feat of genius and diligence. Unfortunately, Einstein isn't more famous for this work (a trilogy of papers between 1901 and 1904) because J.W. Gibbs had already done it but Gibbs work hadn't yet been widely translated into German so the Germam physics community didn't know. From 1905 to his death I'm 1955 Einstein revolutionized science in a way that hadn't been seen in the history of knowledge. The closest historical analog is Isaac Newton in 1666 but the mathematics in Newton is child's play compared to Einstein. Einstein started the quantum revolution in 1905 with his earth-shattering paper on light quanta and then shattered physics again in the same year with his mind-bending paper on Special Relativity which gave us spacetime and relativistic kinematics. Einstein then quantized the radiation field, proved the duloung-petit law, discovered wave-particle duality in 1909, Spontaneous and Stimulated Emission (the LASER), gave us Bose-Einstein Condensates and Bose-Einstein Statistics, Quantum Entanglement, Wormholes, and several other amazing discoveries. Most science historians believe Albert Einstein should have won at least 10 Nobel Prizes. Let that sink in. When polled in the year 2000 by the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) which physicist was the greatest in history, the top living physicists in 2000 voted Albert Einstein number one. Without Einstein, we wouldn't have modern technology, including the GPS! Heck, Einstein even managed to solve the Tea Leaf Paradox in his spare time before he died, and this was a mystery that eluded many of the greatest minds of the past several centuries. For any history buff, he is the GOAT scientist and well deserving of being synonymous with genius 👑🐐.

[@redhotbits]

einstein is the greatest scam in history

[@TheNoldaz]

The time is slower for a fast objet but light isnt affected by time or speed, what a mindfuck

[@TerribleShmeltingAccident]

i think youve got it backwards friend

[@TheNoldaz]

@@TerribleShmeltingAccident Which part

[@thebxsavage]

Light has no mass. No mass = no time experience. I think ?🤔

[@jamespong6588]

Can we use time dilation to skip KZbin ads?

[@hieronymus9]

It’s misleading to say rapidly moving objects “appear to move in slow motion” because of time dilation. The objects appear to be moving as they are, at speeds a significant fraction of c. It’s internal processes within the object that appear to be slowed.

[@stealplow8462]

Dude no one going understand what hell your saying lol.

[@bobdobalina2931]

I'm glad you said that, I thought I was going mad.

[@SimulationAdmin]

Agree…but internally not just ‘appear”to be slowed. They are slowed. A person moving near c is moving near c from your perspective but also aging much slower from your perspective. If they stop moving they will have aged less.

[@checkbox9884]

@@SimulationAdmin nono, the biological proces continues. the spacetraveller at the speed of light, wont see time change or anything else that will be his perception of reality. But meanwhile he still has to eat sleep and do other biological things. Then after his trip of 60 years travelling at the speed of light he lands on earth again, sees his 80 year old twin brother, and then he sees himself in the mirror, (now he is able to see get perception of change, he now sees the seconds on watch changing), and now he sees himself looking same as his twinbrother 60 years older. Al these 60 years of travelling at the speed of light, the photons which reflected on his surrounding were never able to catch up with his eyes, to show the changes. So conclusion not all Holywood scifi is acurate portraying reality.....

[@chesterpophamproductions2879]

It's all relative at this point!

[@randalljsilva]

GPS satellites experience time *faster* because the general relativistic effect of being outside the earth’s gravitational well (they experience about 1/4 the gravity compared to MSL) is about +45 microseconds/day, while the special relativistic effect of moving faster (they move at about 4 km/s) than a person at rest is -7 microseconds. Therefore the net effect is +38 microseconds/day. They program the clocks to be -38 microseconds/day on the ground before launch such that the clocks tick at the nominal/desired frequency on orbit. Receivers do have to account for the eccentricity of their orbits, which brings them closer to the earth and faster at perigee (both effects slow the clock) and slower and farther from the earth at apogee (both effects speed up the clock). But the net effect of a full orbit on the clock is zero.

[@xantiom]

Oh, is it hard coded? I thought they were compensating in real time by measuring speed and altitude

[@redhotbits]

all fake

[@Liammcgowan]

they should consider looking at empty space as being in a state of chronometric flux. and that gravity fields modulate that flux with a bias to the past which scales at range but which appears to be a nominal constant due to causality of the emissions from the relative object per its position. i have theorized for a while that on the galactic scale, the modulation of this flux going past it's peak at spatial position x might cause more supernova in the rear quadrant of a galaxy relative to its drift vector, and perhaps a surge in star birth and water formation in the rotational lead boundary of the forward facing 90* difficult to correlate the data over our short observational interval though.

[@SBImNotWritingMyNameHere]

Bro wtf are you on abt

[@graham2105]

Lol

[@brt5273]

IKR? How can anyone be expected to comprehend a sentence containing multiple independent clauses in this day and age.

[@jacobg3490]

Is that you Terrence Howard?

[@projardgreen2568]

I was really paying attention to what Anton was teaching, I understood the lesson, as I have seen videos of this fenomena before. However it just doesnt seem right...though GPS uses this theory, I cant help but feel that something is being either exagerated or misunderstood. If a supernova moving extreamelly fast away from us, appears to happen slower, it is just a question of perspective to us, because, in reality, the supernova is happening at the same rate to another "observer" to whom the same supernova is moving closer right? Well, then how does that affect the "passing of time" of BOTH "observers"? Wouldnt that mean that time was "accelerated" to the FIRST observer in regards to the SECOND?, moreover, how can EVERYSINGLE COSMO react to us diferently, yet, we see all happening in a CONSISTENT MANNER? With all due respect, this theory of time relativity is very LACKING to me, even wrong... When acounting for atomic watches held in satelites, I am SURE that the low temperature felt in satelites have EVERYTHING to do with its "mechanics" SLOWING DOWN, hence, appearing to be a "TIME DILATION". As for the supernova example, it is OBVIOUSS to me that we are only seeing the event happen SLOWER because LIGHT is SLOWED DOWN as it happens with the red-shifting fenomena, just as the car thats moving close appears to sound higher in FREQUENCY then the same car that is moving away, HOWEVER, the SOUND in itself is always PRODUCED with the SAME FREQUENCY... I am CONVINCED this is all effects of PERSPECTIVE, and NOT in actuall TIME DILATIONS AT ALL...

[@AKSTEVE1111]

Now we're getting into a topic that I can sink my teeth into. The time dilation factor (γ) is given by the Lorentz factor: [ \gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} ] where (v) is the relative velocity between the observers and (c) is the speed of light. This is the cool math 🙏🙏🙏 Great show Anton 👍

[@rogerphelps9939]

Not quite right. If you have a fixed observer viewing a moving clock you have to take into account the changing disttance between the fixed observer and the moving clock. the Lorenttz factor gives the time dilation that is measured by a continuum of observers in the observer's reference frame such that the moving clock is observed by the observer at exactly the same position as the clock. When you take into account the changing distance of the clock from the fixed observer you will find that the moving clock is apparently slower than given by Lorentz and an approaching clock always appears tto be faster than the stationary observer's clock. This correction is essential to make sense of the twins paradox

[@maladyofdeath]

Now they just have to build time dilators around radioactive sources.

[@AKSTEVE1111]

@@rogerphelps9939 twins paradox demonstrates that the twin who travels at high speed and undergoes acceleration will age less than the twin who remains in a relatively stationary, inertial frame of reference. The resolution of facts are becoming more clear as science observations become clear and we learn trust in the tools we use.

[@Colin4763]

I thought time moves fractionally slower on Earth with respect to satellites, because we're at the bottom of Earth's gravity well ?

[@patrickrannou1278]

@@rogerphelps9939 Exactly! The actual time dilation is caused by the speed differential. The changing distance however is causing a purely "optical illusion" doppler shift effect that SEEM to slow down / speed up the object's clock. Up to both those effect, is is Special Relativity and (relatively) quite simple maths. The twin paradox is resolved fully only if you ALSO take into account which object is actually accelerating, as interpreted NOT by the actual distance change per second squared, but by the "feeling an acceleration" kinda force. Being immobile on a planet is feeling it's gravity, and yields the exact same effects as being in an "actually" accelerating spaceship. The actual baseline being when one is in true inertial "free fall" movement. And once you add in acceleration, you need General Relativity, and its maths are a REAL headache to fully grasp and even worse to actually compute.

[@gaiustesla9324]

"time" is the movement of energy ....energy can NEVER get ahead of its own reactions. You cannot "dilate" energies movement. Relativity, its a way to explain how any particular part of space reacts specifically to the energy around it. So yeah ....if you "speed up the energetic reactions around you" ...like for example you jump into a fire, the organisation of energy you're made of will come apart way faster than if you didnt do that....but this has nothing to do with "time travelling" and this whole way of wording it is making morons think you can somehow get into the "future" whilst "everyone" is still in the "past". Thats not how it works. All energy is in "real time" as in, now... even if you could move lightspeed (which you can't because only electromagnetic waves can) around the earth, you couldn't be ahead of the energetic reactions that are occuring, you'd just be moving 187'000 miles per second round and round and round. They're simply talking about the "time" it takes energy to cover distance.....like if you get stuck in a traffic jam or not, you're not "changing time" or "ahead of time" or "behind time". I dont understand why these people insist on this bullshit. This is like saying because there is a 3ish second delay between the earth and the moon ( and back), NO MATTER WHAT CAUSE ITS 250'000 MILES AWAY and the fastest energy can travel is 187'000 miles per second, that the moon is "3 seconds behind earth".....NO IT ISN'T it just always will take ANYTHING atleast 3 seconds to get there and back from earth if its 250'000 miles away constantly...which it isnt but thats "relativity" as in...energy behaves relative to whats around it.

[@philochristos]

That's pretty cool. If we could zoom in and see their version of a Sloth, and it was talking, it would probably be talking in super slow motion, and it would be funny.

[@acestapp1884]

Far out, man

[@Demonic_Tang]

Someone is blazed out of their mind

[@subjectkgb9394]

@@acestapp1884I believe you would indeed need to be far out for this to be observed.

[@PsychoticWolfie]

And the sloth would be saying "badoing badoing badoing"

[@BondJFK]

for them we are slower , F1 race seems like sloth race here

[@AstronomyForChange]

Interesting video, Anton. You do realize that this experiment you describe using white dwarfs is constrained to galaxies with z < 4, no older than 13 Gyr. We will NEVER see Type Ia supernovae in galaxies with z > 4. Why? In order for a Type Ia supernova to occur, there must be a white dwarf progenitor star. These stars represent the final evolutionary stage for stars below 4 solar masses. More massive stars have shorter lives and end either as neutron stars (4-8 solar masses) or as Type II supernovae (8 solar masses and greater). These stars < 4 solar masses must live out their lives to the end - we have to wait for them to exhaust their compliment of hydrogen and run through the helium that was built up before the white dwarf phase. For a solar-mass star, this takes about 12 billion years. A 4-solar mass star reaches this point in about 400 million years. Thus, the only white-dwarf progenitors would be those from stars whose initial mass was between 3 and 4 solar masses. For lower-mass stars, there simply wasn’t enough time for their white dwarfs to form in the very young universe. For a solar-mass star to reach its white dwarf phase, we would need almost the current age of the universe as a wait time! Using the stellar evolution of 3-4 solar-mass stars, we constrain the redshift when Type Ia supernovae would first appear. This constraint corresponds to a “look-back time” of 13 billion years (z = 4) as follows: 13.8 Billion years - (380 million years for the first stars to form + 400 million years for progenitor white dwarfs to form) = 13 billion years look-back time (z = 4). Currently, we see no evidence of Type Ia supernovae in galaxies with redshifts greater than 4. These early galaxies and the very young universe simply weren’t old enough at 800 million years for white dwarfs to have formed.

[@anthonyalfredyorke1621]

Thanks Anton, Time Dialation it's mind bending stuff . The Universe is amazing and thanks to you I'm learning more about it every day which is definitely a good thing. I'm still WAVING AND STAYING WONDERFUL. HAVE A GREAT WEEK EVERYONE. PEACE AND LOVE TO EVERYONE ❤❤.

[@douglaswilkinson5700]

There are two types of time dilation: kinematic and gravitational. Anton described kinematic. The movie "Interstellar" demonstrated gravitational (since thet were close to a massive black hole.) To a distant observer time actually appears to stop at the event horizon of a BH.

[@coltinl33t]

so taking your last bit of info, you were referencing the fact that Sagittarius A - our local blackhole- which is known to spin at near the theorized limits. that it might be effecting things locally with said time dilation?

[@ricardodelzealandia6290]

Something Anton is not mentioning is that under current cosmological models, this cosmological time dilation is perceived, not real. At the end of the video he states "it's real", but he referring to the effect, not the dilation itself. The examples given of satellites undergoing time dilation on the other hand is real time dilation, not perceived.

[@ianstopher9111]

What do you mean not real? Your observations of a distant event are as valid as an observer close to that event. You can disagree about things, but there is no paradox.

[@halfstache1070]

​@ianstopher9111 think of a far away galaxy moving away from us, sending photons our direction. Each subsequent photon has a slightly longer distance to travel than the one before it, so two photons sent one second apart would arrive slightly more spaced out, creating a "slowed down" observation.

[@qzamboni]

I don't know how technical the terms "real" and "perceived" are, but I understand what you're saying. Time is not actually moving more slowly in those distant galaxies (Edit: this statement is imprecise, see below), we only observe it to be moving more slowly, since those galaxies have a large relative velocity to us. While satellites in a sense actually experience time moving a different speed than we do (although it's complicated as someone said above, since their orbital velocity slows time for them while being in a lower gravitational potential speeds it up). The difference I believe is between special and general relativity - and, if we want to be technical, the fact that Earth satellites are essentially in the same spatial location as Earth. Gravitational fields and accelerations change things. The resolution to the twin paradox comes from the fact that, in order to turn around and come back to Earth, the astronaut twin has to accelerate / change their reference frame. You can only ever talk about whether two objects have experienced different amounts of time passing if those objects begin in the same location, and end in the same location.

[@qzamboni]

@@halfstache1070 Actually, this is just propagation delay of the light, not time dilation. In observations of distant galaxies, there will be both propagation delay effects since the distance between us and the galaxies is changing, and time dilation effects since we have a large relative velocity to those galaxies. The propagation delay I assume can be worked out from the redshift, and the rest is time dilation.

[@kevinbrooks9074]

Sam and Jake stood under the warm spray of the shower, steam swirling around them. Their laughter echoed off the tiles as they washed away the grime of the day. “You know,” Sam said, lathering shampoo into his hair, “I was reading this article about the history of hand jobs. It’s fascinating.” Jake chuckled, rinsing soap off his arms. “Only you would find that interesting. What did it say?” “Well,” Sam began, “it turns out that hand jobs were a common part of male bonding rituals in some cultures. It was more about camaraderie than sex.” Jake raised an eyebrow. “Really? That’s pretty wild. Imagine explaining that at a family dinner.” They both laughed, the sound blending with the noise of the water. “Hey, knowledge is power,” Sam grinned, rinsing his hair. Jake nodded, smiling. “Just another quirky piece of trivia for the books. Only you, Sam.”

[@ninjabus7454]

Does time dilation also lower the apparent brightness of objects, as they’re emitting less energy per second to our observations?

[@7thDayAdventures]

I thought they provided this back in 71 with the Hafele-Keating experiment.

[@jimcurtis9052]

Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 👍🙂

[@vamps1385]

could time dialation happen from gravity over distance and time bending the light into a redshift?

[@stvybaby]

We spend our lives forcing ourselves to use only 5 senses to experience the universe. So much to learn, so little time.

[@johnnyrocket4357]

So is it the accumulation of knowledge that allows us to perceive the sense of time which extends beyond the five classical senses?

[@PsychoticWolfie]

We have a ton more senses than 5, but none of them are spiritual in nature :) Balance, thermoception, possibility some of us can detect barometric pressure or magnetic fields, slight night vision but not as good as animals. Some of us can even see extra colors! No ESP though, everything works on science 😁

[@ericmcnellis1190]

ok... it dosent matter how fast you go, the same amount of time still passes. 😂 ... "humans are stupid"

[@Time-Shepherd.]

Perfect timing 👌 Cheers, Anton 🙏 ❤

[@shanerooney7288]

Anton's videos are never late. Nor are they early. They are perpetually considered to be perfectly timed.

[@farrier2708]

What effect does time dilation have on the calculation of the Hubble Constant? I ask because I'm not sure whether further away galaxies are actually moving more slowly or if they only appear to be, from our perspective.

[@stuartl7761]

This time dilation is only an apparant time dilation, and it also has the exact same mechanism as what causes redshift, which is part of the basic equations used to calculate the most classic measurements of the hubble constant. So all of the spacetime effects of an expanding universe were taken into account from the start.

[@LisaHubbled]

Well said.. However, it's important to remember that even though distant objects appear time dilated, they still exist in the present. Just because that distant object looks like it's slowing down doesn't mean that it actually is. When we observe distant objects, we're viewing them as they were back in time, when they existed within the cosmic event horizon. As time progressed, they have fallen from view such that their light will never reach us now. It doesn't mean that they cease to exist. It just means space has expand faster than light. Btw, I was just chatting with someone about this very subject. Maybe you read my thread? That would be cool.

[@NG-VQ37VHR]

You are confusing the time light takes to get to us with time dilation. These aren't the same thing. Their time is absolutely slower compared to the time we are experiencing. It doesn't just appear to us to be slower, it is slower. Thats what time dilation is. Time is relative.

[@LisaHubbled]

@@NG-VQ37VHR Your mistaken. Firstly, the Nobel prize was awarded in 2022 for proving the universe isn't locally real. So, you're going to have to fit that into your interpretation of GR somewhere. Think about it. Secondly, I'm not confusing light and time dilation. It was my point that light and time dilation don't have anything to do with each other so GR's interpretation of time dilation is incorrect. The universe isn't locally real.

[@catpoke9557]

@@LisaHubbled Can I ask for an explanation of what "locally real" means?

[@LisaHubbled]

@@catpoke9557 It means that what you see isn't actually what's happening to the object due to the speed of light creating a time delay. You see an image of the past. What you see isn't "locally real".

[@heyimanameheyimalastname]

@@LisaHubbled But then why do our calculations of how the clocks of satellites should be adjusted work? According to our understanding, satellites should experience time differences in both directions, their time moving a bit slower due to their much higher velocity, but also their time moving a bit faster due to being further out in the Earth's gravity well; the latter effect is larger, so their time should actually move a slight bit faster than ours (+38 microseconds per day), and their clocks before launch are adjusted to fit this. With these adjustments, though there are variations from moment to moment since their orbits aren't perfectly spherical, their clocks over the course of a full orbit run on average at the same speed as ours. If either one of the considerations used here was wrong in some way, then the current calculations we use would not work

[@BanFamilyVlogging]

So is it **the actual passage of time** that gets dilated, or simply our observation of it?

[@tomchang3212]

I don’t get it distant stars will have time dilation with respect to our clocks, but an observers at that distant star will also see us red shifted and observe us as being time dilated. How is that possible? ???

[@ryanpennington9592]

Einstein’s theory of special relativity.

[@ianstopher9111]

I think the original poster was not speaking of "us", as more events in our Milky Way will proceed more slowly when viewed by a distant observer who considers our galaxy moving away from them. Events in their galaxy look slowed to us. Events in our galaxy look slowed to them.

[@stuartl7761]

That's the twin paradox baby. The short answer is that we've both got different definitions time and what events happen at the same time. For us 200 years have past while some aliens have only expereinced 100 years. Yet for those aliens Their 100 year party is at the same time as when we've only past 50 years. Our time axes are unaligned. It's a crazy stuff universe we live in.

[@Wizecrack22]

Not to sound too stupid, but is time dilation some kind of optical or visual illusion that just seems real to the observer??

[@silkyb9869]

It gets deeper when you realize there is no time

[@johnwilkens6758]

I thought there was no "SPOON!"😶😉🤣

[@juanningatlife]

Expound pls

[@CumiaBites]

You don’t know that.

[@nickb220]

@@juanningatlife not sure how well that's gonna go lol

[@microchip5673]

@@juanningatlifetechnically it’s a unit of measurement that we use based on the sun’s rotation. We also use it as a way of describing things like aging but it’s subjective. How would you measure your time in another solar system? What if you was on a planet the sun didn’t touch? You would you a different type measurement system to create time for yourself.

[@erdngtn9942]

I still think dark matter solutions will be solved by observing time and not invisible mass.

[@cracklingice]

I still don't understand why time dilation isn't the reason why we think spiral galaxies spin wrong.

[@bugsy742]

I think you are absolutely correct 👍 🤝

[@fetmar]

I think the effect you're talking about is indeed there but it's not enough to account for the observed velocities

[@carlosdgutierrez6570]

It is accounted for but it is nowhere enough to explain the velocities observed.

[@subcitizen2012]

At least for astronomical math, that's pretty easy math. Someone would've noticed that already and it's probably already accounted for. That effect is also not the only observed effects of the proposed dark matter.

[@kastenolsen9577]

Mainstream scientists are stupidly blind.

[@tomcan48]

"SPOOKY ACTION AT A DISTANCE", REFUTED??? Looks like entanglement is wrong after all. Long live traditional physics.

[@avsystem3142]

Your comment has nothing at all to do with the subject matter of this video. Entanglement has been demonstrated in the laboratory so there is no question about the fact.

[@Auroral_Anomaly]

Well you bet there is time dilation, not only was everything more dense in the early universe, but it is also moving away from us at high speeds.

[@fsfazekas]

Presumably someone located at one of those supernova looking at us will see us in slow motion as well due to our apparent redshift from them…?

[@Pharoset]

If everything was destroyed on Earth and we had to start over without knowing what existed in the past, people would have to reinvent new religions, but the science would stay exactly the same. "Thank god" for science!!!

[@stephenphillips4984]

God would stay the same as well. So thank God for God.

[@SlyNine]

​@@stephenphillips4984unless there is no god.

[@Cjnw]

​@@stephenphillips4984maybe he'd become Allah or Buddha!!

[@klappstock943]

For the Algorithm the story and your nice way to level my way to see, think and understand complex information. Big hug from Hamburg 🎉.

[@LuvHrtZ]

Every time I mention on YT that time is not linear and that these old galaxies that only appeared '400m years' after the BB are influenced by time dialation I get laughed off. This proves my point. Cheers for another great show, Anton. PS> This could explain the rotation of spiral galaxies more so than the mythical Dark Matter.

[@ianstopher9111]

PS> No it couldn't

[@pat8988]

Does this mean that the stars orbiting Sagittarius A* are actually orbiting much faster than we see? And since they have elliptical orbits, the dilation would change (a lot?) with distance.

[@MarkTill-vt3ku]

no because they are in the same intertiel frame of reference

[@richardthrust1126]

Pure pedantry: satellites experience time slightly *faster* than us, not slower.

[@freefall9832]

Yes, time is slower on earth than in orbit. Time runs slower in a gravity well.

[@filonin2]

The are both not in a gravity well and are going fast, both of which slow time. Wrong in your pedantry.

[@osterianio]

@M.F.-lq7jb That's wrong. Satellites have their clocks tuned to be slower than the desired Earthside clock frequency because they will run FASTER in orbit. The speedup from being further from Earth is greater than the slowdown from orbital velocity.

[@M.F.-lq7jb]

There s special relativitys dilation and gravitational redshift dilation (general relativity ) but they do not chancel 100% for earth satellites. So yes I got that wrong. The clocks frequency is indeed slower on satellite clocks to compensate. I remove my earlier comment.😢 I tought gravitational dilation was the weaker factor.

[@richardthrust1126]

To be clear I'm not criticizing Anton. If he never misspoke even slightly, then he wouldn't be human and I would be worried he was actually an AI!

[@Pedro_Paulo_Castro]

There is one thing I don't understand. I thought the expansion of the universe was not a relativistic phenomenon, so much so that is routinely said by scientists that there are very far away galaxies moving away from us at greater than the speed of light. Why would distant galaxies appear time-dilated if the speed limit does not apply to them, given the fact that the hard cap on speed is the whole assumption from which time dilation is derived?

[@stuartl7761]

Yeah, you're absolutely right. Technically the slowing effect here isn't true time dilation. The events occur at normal speed, but the light from those events is stretched by the expansion of the universe. So e.g. two photons that left 1 second apart are now 2 seconds apart (from a redshift of 1). So along with appearing redder, the events also appear in slow motion, but it's purely an observational effect. I think the wording of this discovery has confused the majority of people about this nuance.

[@CyFr]

Hey, I guess this would give us an idea of how far away supernovae were in history due to the length they were recorded

[@NatrajChaturvedi]

Add in mild music in the background already to your videos! The kind of music they use in space docs.;

[@teemum.9023]

Yeah, that explains why galaxies seem less developed over time/too fast developed in our time. But is the time dilation from our point of view or actually there?

[@stuartl7761]

Just from our point of view. The light is just stretched as it travels through an expanding universe.

[@Jefuslives]

I think time dilation effects will be key in determining the real age of the universe, and things we attribute to dark energy and dark matter.

[@qzamboni]

No, we've known about time dilation since special relativity was introduced in 1905. This is just another confirmation, though a cool one.

[@NS-mz8gq]

So all the matter is recycled

[@3zdayz]

Time dilation isn't just how things appear, and actually the Lorentz transform doesn't even give you what you see, just how relativistic things behave. Then this doesn't necessarily indicate time dilation, but is just how it appears as it moves away and the signals from it take a longer time to arrive which is just a propagation delay and not time dilation. I'm their local space they probably aren't moving that fast through space but space they are in is moving away...

[@3zdayz]

Is certainly a nail in the coffin of a steady state universe...

[@qzamboni]

They can know the propagation delay from the redshift though. Redshift gives the relative speed between us and distant galaxies, which gives the propagation delay. Then the rest of the effect is time dilation. Edit: Also, the Lorentz transform is special relativity only. Time dilation can be both a special or general relativistic effect.

[@3zdayz]

@@qzamboni yeah but it's not just propagation delay from there to here but an increasing delay because they are moving further and further away over the time they are emitting the signal. That's not time dilation. Time dilation would be that the event actually does take longer. This is really just that the event is seen as longer.

[@jeffjones7108]

If space-time expands faster in a void than in non-void space, wouldn't you expect a tiny (but predictable) variation of time-dilation relative to surrounding space? Especially in very large voids? Space expands faster there due to dark matter, if I understand it correctly.

[@196cupcake]

It would be cool if time dilation could also be shown with large objects approaching us quickly, but I suppose there aren't many of those.

[@johnnyrocket4357]

Research Barnard's Star which is approaching our solar system at approximately 67 miles per second.

[@stuartl7761]

Damn it's so hard making friends in this cosmic epoch

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

Time is the only resource. But it's almost unfathomable for humanity to accept that when they look up, they're looking into "the Past" (sort of). They can barely wrap their minds around the fact that they cannot perceive things "as they truly are" solely with their eyes. Sure, if ya look 300 feet in any direction, ya get the "Present". But 300LY in any direction summons the "Past". No question of it, but it doesn't do anyone much good. Yer still gonna d13 before any of it could ever hold legitimate meaning! 😂🤣😂

[@existenceisillusion6528]

_Doctor Who music starts playing..._

[@Cjnw]

Max Headroom shows up with a Pepsi 😂

[@lavanderialoca7385]

Anton, you are an inteligent and interesting person. What I CAN SEE, is that you have a heart of gold.😊

[@straightup7up]

Anton is the man for all galactic topics, 😅

[@injunsun]

Oh, @AntonPetrov, you're killing me with your pronunciation of quasar. It does NOT rhyme with laser. It is not a "KWAY-zuhr." It is a "KWAY-Zahr." Ah, like in father, not uhr, like dirt. Otherwise, keep up the good work.

[@darrenrissler3493]

This just sounds like I'm one step closer to going back to the 80s. Whoo hoo science, now get going on that time machine, and dont give me that "time is linear" excuse.

[@CarlAyers-x8h]

So nobody really knows what year it is. It's certainly not 2024... If everything is billions of years old. Maybe unfathomable years old.

[@John-wm6fg]

I Learned of Time Dilatation through Watching Star Trek and Other Theories of Super Human Brain Heads !!! I Find it Very Interesting indeed, especially the Fact that if such travel was Possible ? You could in theory I guess , return to Earth and Everyone you Ever had known had Passed away Long Ago , Even Your youngest children from old Age !!! I Wonder if you could Slow down Your Long journey Home if you could catch back up to your Original Earth Time History ??? I Will ask the Next Time Traveler I May Meet one Day ? May You Have a Safe Journey My Friends !!!

[@Reginaldesq]

Hang on a sec. Were you wrong in the intro when you said the object orbiting the earth was experiencing time dilation? My understanding is its all about the observer. So, from the objects point of view, we are experiencing dilation. As far as I understood it, nobody can experience time dilation we can only observe it happening to something or somebody else. For the other person or object everything seems normal. Am I wrong?

[@aliensarerealttsa6198]

More junk from Anton?

[@vincentcleaver1925]

Hello, wonderful Anton! Atomic bearhugz from sLower Delaware! I was thinking about you and your family the other day and I hope you are well

[@robertfrotlarranaga5725]

Look at the "Quantum Realism" TOE from Brian Withworth, it gives an incredibly clever explanation of time dilation

[@MinecraftSurge]

if something is moving away from you, it would look like youre dropping frames or losing fps. But its not because there is less fps, its because its further away, making frames travel greater distances. So does that mean the time dilation only happens for the observer and no one else?

[@stevenkarnisky411]

Is there time dilation as we age? Why do days and weeks seem to pass at blinding speed as I get old? Nothing seems to have blue shifted, but here it is, tomorrow already! Thanks for yesterday's program on time dilation, Anton.

[@martinmakuch2556]

There is research into this too. Partly it is simply because as we get older the same interval is relatively smaller portion of our life. For example for 5 year old 1 year is 20% of their whole life, for 50 year old it is just 2%, so it seems to go so much faster. Also it might be because brain is getting older and slower at processing thoughts. And because we take longer to take to conclusion, it seems like the world around is moving faster. But no, it should not be caused by relativistic effects, more like psychological.

[@PhilipPedro2112]

It's also like taking a trip in a car. It seems shorter the more times you make it.

[@theorize999]

the only way i can make any sense of this is we live on a finite cluster of matter in an infinite universe. If energy is constantly roiling up from the void pushing everything apart then it must be infinite and what we think of as the big bang must’ve been the event that created the matter in this patch of it. I haven’t seen any evidence that points to the creation of the universe, just that matter. As far as I know we con only see light created by stars, right? Sure it’s bent and stretched but it’s still starlight right? I’ve never heard any suggestions on where the edge might be. Just very old, very distant light that’s observed in a way that suggests it’s all spreading out and has been since the beginning. From what I can tell everyone is assuming the universe was born when the matter in it was… but I can’t see any reason that same energy wasn’t just humming away before the matter arrived. Am I wrong? Please help if you know why my conception is wrong it seems logical to me but i don’t have an education on this i just watch a lot of science videos and this is what i gather

[@theorize999]

I also feel like I’m coming close to something in the ball park of existing ideas like whats it called, inflationary multiverse or something like that, but I feel like I’m thinking of it very differently. I’m really trying to visualize what I’m being told i think just with the idea that, this quantum foam type thing is interesting i’d like to see a simulation of this foam running

[@theorize999]

so is it really time slowing or just the light stretching. I think i’m going to have to watch this again.

[@justjoe942]

I think I get you; why does 'matter' denoted the beginning of the 'now'. Could it not just be an indicator of a phase change: a point at which the energy stopped just humming along freely. Or, am I off the mark?

[@robertpotvin8872]

38 uSEC a day,,,is ,,,3,38 SEC for a 100 000 years, , or 1 SEC for 26 315,8 years ,,humans on the space station dont feel that for shure ,, so nothing to worry about getting old faster🤣

[@sirhammon]

So Distance in light years needs to account for Time Dilation to get an accurate age. The further they are away, the earlier in time we are looking because of time dilation as well. So, A galaxy at the far reaches of space looks 100,000 years old, but because of time dilation, we are observing it growing say half the speed it should be growing. So we've only seen maybe 50,000 years of the galaxy forming. Sort of like 2 supernovas going off exactly at the same time relative to the start of the Big Bang. Supernova nearby taking say 10 months to get to a certain light amount, and at the edge of the universe, we will look and it will be twice as bright as the nearby one since we are only seeing it halfway through its explosion. So, the Galaxies we look at in JWST, are actually not 300,000 years old (calculated by distance), but they are maybe 150,000 years old calculated by distance and reduced by 1+z. So say 1000 light-years, is reduced by 0.08 time dilation, then it's not 1000 years we are looking at. It's 980. Then 2000 light-years would be 1960 years past for the object. Additionally, that means that if (Spacetime expansion theory) a warp drive moved space-time, it would still experience velocity time dilation. If no matter where in the universe you are, everywhere you look, time is slower the more distance there is, then if you travel away from Earth faster due to universe expansion, Earth would look slower too. The issue here is, If a satellite travels away from Earth at 20ms slower, and it sees that Earth was actually 20ms slower, then with they come back, both would be slower than each other. We don't see that. My understanding was that travelling through fields would slow the rate of change. Satellites travelling faster through fields than Earth = slower rate of change. If the supernova experiences the same thing, then it's travelling faster through fields than Earth. If it's travelling through fields at the same rate as Earth, then Earth would appear to have a slower rate of change than an observer at the supernova. This would make it different velocity time dilation to satellites. Fascinating. So either not the same velocity time dilation as satellites, or we are at the center of the universe and everything is travelling away at a percentage of C having a slower rate of change. Hmm the universe was much denser at the start of the universe, so, more gravitation time dilation. Could that be it?

[@thoughttransmitter5555]

Does that mean: Objects beyond the Cosmic Event Horizon are travelling backwards in time (relative to us)? That’s to say once we reach distances where the expansion of the universe is greater than the speed of light (relative to us) these objects not only become forever invisible to us, but also start travelling into the universe’s past (relative to us)? Talk about mind blowing! 🤯 😃 Because I know if you are actually standing on one of those objects time travels perfectly normal. And yet at far away distances: Time dilation is still real (relative to us). That’s to say: Can these 2 seemingly contradictory facts, both be simultaneously, true? 🤯

[@DPtheOG]

Happily for us Milky Wayans, Sagittarius A* is spinning at nearly the maximum speed possible for black holes.

[@Marconel100]

But if things that are very far away from us are in slowmotion TO US. Shouldn't we be in fast motion TO THEM? This makes no sense, maybe I'm not smart enough to understand, please can someone explain to me?

[@ingmarkronfeldt6174]

1. Some objects as redshift indicating a velocity > c, at least up to 4c (since space is traveling away faster than c). => What kind of time dilation can we expect for them? 2. Also, studying events in slow motion should make it possible to study them more in detail, right?

[@michaellaubecher5102]

So, hypothetically, if aliens visited our planet 4,000 years ago, left to go to their world (say a couple hundred light years away) at a speed as fast or faster(?) than light, their trip, to them, might take a few months, but for us on Earth, 4,000 years might have passed or more? Hypothetical of course...

[@computerfreakch8912]

Imagine the inhabitants of those distant galaxies - for them, everything in our neighborhood appears to happen slowly too, right? So, who's got the slow-running clock? Them, or us?

[@mickwilson99]

Anton: I assume that you know that t 10:25 ime dilation is not 'a thing' in that you can have a bucket of time dilation. Or energy. Or mass increase, or length contraction. These are all artifacts of taking measurements if things travelling at large fractions of light speed relative to us wot be observing events. Yes, more evidence for relativistic effects is grand. We have lots. Yea! More from the Dawn of Time etc. Now, the really juicy story will be when - after 100+ years - repeated observations *do not* conform to Einstein's model. That could be news-worthy.

[@mrmoose1599]

Muons don’t live longer. The clock at rest has a different reading than a clock in motion. We are talking about the muons clock. It dilated. Not the muons biology. Do you even work in particle physics?

[@RealityIsntReallyReal]

There are so many inaccuracies in this video, it's making my head spin. If our current understanding of GR is right, then we shouldn't see the supernova rate change at all, it would only change how many photons we see at once, changing the light intensity. Light moves at c, so the supernova should never change if measuring light. But if they are measuring something with mass, doing some napkin math, if the farthest star ejected a particle at 0.99c, it could actually take 7x longer. Which means the particle physically grew 7x larger. And the reason the photon shows less intensity, is because the measuring equipment takes longer to measure the entire photon. So dividing the time / energy makes it look like it's a different wave, but it's really just a big fat photon of the same energy, as the smaller one. Because photons are particles, not waves. But one more final statement: Light can never actually move at c, or what we think c is, because there is no true vacuum anywhere, it doesn't exist. So using c in our equations is already wrong, and giving us bad predictions. Faraday/Maxwell were on the right track with aether, however Faraday used fields to describe the effects, and Maxwell thought they were vibrations, so waves were built into the math, but so was aether somehow. It wasn't until Einstein, that we finalized they are all particles, not waves. Ironically, Einstein thought a true vacuum was real, and aether was out, so his equations never worked. Now they cheat using fluid dynamics with Newton hacks, to explain stuff like galaxy rotations, instead of just sucking it up, and creating a good particle theory. Current theoretical physicists are lame, but the astrophysicists are hack frauds, because they just grab some random theory off a shelf, and prune the data to make the stars do what they want.

[@ralphyoung6032]

What about the possibility of time *constriction* relative to the Earth, as opposed to dilation? As I understand it, there is no objective zero velocity; everything, including the cosmic microwave background, just has its own "rest frame." Let's hypothesize the matter that formed the Earth and it's galaxy in the past somehow accelerated to relativistic speed compared to the matter of another galaxy, which then experienced time much more *quickly* than we do. From our perspective the universe is near 14 billion years old, but from this hypothetical galaxy the universe would currently be much older. Is there any way we could prove or disprove our galaxy experienced this past acceleration and is itself time-dilated relative to such a hypothetical galaxy?

[@bartermens8219]

Hi, Just to summerize because the 'time dilation' animation was kinda meh. Time dilation happens for objects in motion. So standing on a fast moving object, the faster you go, the more time slow down. But when we messure time dilation from far away objects the time dilation we messure is based upon the relative speed it moves away from us (or towards us). And you also have the red shift due to expansion of the universe. So if I am right you are talking about 3 types of time dilation. 1. Red shift time dilation due to expasion of the universe. 2. Relative time dilation from distance planets compared to their sun seen from Earth. 3. Absolute time dilation which is the speed of the object in the universe. Did I get it right? Did I miss something?

[@mabdinur85]

Could this explain the red dots that JWST found popping all over the place? You just made a video on these red dots and I'm just watching this older video and making the connection.

[@thebxsavage]

0:02 “Today we’re going to discuss a RELATIVELY exciting study” I see what you did there!

[@branjosnow6244]

Theoretically speaking, a race that was able to master antigravity technology to provide a stable environment. Could exist near the event horizon of a black hole, where time is extremely slow? If they had worked out that living on any planet is inevitably a bad idea, and just lived on a space station parked at or over the edge of a massive black hole's event horizon. With an opposite gravitational effect keeping it in a stable orbit/position. They could travel to seed a planet via the same technology, then return for say 5.- 10 years of their own life, while a hundred thousand years or even millions of years passes on the planet they just seeded? Coming back would seem like the return of God's. When in reality they're really just humanoid with the same lifespan as us, but through time manipulation, they might seem to live forever from our perspective? Ancient astronaut theory talks about how they may have seeded planets, but not how they survive long enough to check on their own experiments? Maybe by making time dilatation work for them, they can/do? Putting the bong down now. 😊

[@chrislong3938]

Traveling at the speed of light causes time dilation! Shouldn't there be time contraction as well? You know I understand, in my own way how and why perceptions can be misleading compared to reality, but I do have some issues. It seems to me that sometimes physics is very linear in how it works... e.g. - An object grows in mass so much that at some point its linear gravity is too great for light to escape! A Black Hole! Fine... also, that gravity is so strong that it is capable of shredding the atoms of the mass (Me) that is closer to the big mass (BH) than the atoms further away from the mass (Me) to the point where the atomic bonding of the part of the mass further away from the big mass is unable to overcome the inertia and pulls apart... spaghettification. This is all very linear and understandable in my pea brain. It also seems to me that physics can go in non-linear directions, not with mass, but with light. This video seems to confirm this! When I observe something sitting on my coffee table, it is some light distance away from me! I can see it and my arm can cross that light distance and pick it up! Perhaps it's a light-nanosecond away from me. So too can I observe objects at a light-year's distance and even much more! The Voyagers are almost a full light-day away from us! Physicists don't seem to believe that we, or the observable section of the universe we occupy, are moving at the speed of light relative to any part of the unobservable part of the universe! Or if in fact, that part of the unobserved universe is what might be moving at light speed and we are in fact moving as they think we are!!! What if the universe is one giant vortex, moving faster at the outer diameter than at the inner diameter and galaxies are simply tiny vortices of turbulence within it? Traveling at the speed of light causes time dilation! Shouldn't there be time contraction as well? I dunno, I'm confounding myself at this point and really need to shake out what I want to say! It ain't easy though! Sorry!

[@GeneralSulla]

Dialation is another word for expansion and contraction. So the faster the Universe expands, shouldn't time dialate slower? Hmmm. And I nominate "Sloemotiony" as an official scientific term.😂

[@MaxBrix]

As you look further away you are seeing further into the past. If you looked far enough time would be frozen at the beginning but you can't because those objects are in space that is receding faster than the speed of light.

[@2oqp577]

But Anton, wavelength shift because of direction and speed of bodies relative to the observer, so it's simply a Doppler effect. The constance of time it shot out the window of the apartment of reasonability😁 and lands in the pool of intellectual mast... Time is a dimensional constant, locally or not and Doppler effects are just an incumbency involved the distances we are dealing with. So calling the Doppler effects 'time dilation'. is somewhat dishonest and ill-advised. I am not faulting you on that, the whole community uses the term. Moreover, the 'time dilation' experiment made with clocks in jetliners in the '70s did not prove time dilation because; a) They could not repeat the experiment (logistically) b) The calculated values were not what was measured c) There was a lot of noise in the measurements d) At a post-experiment meeting where they exposed their findings, it was stated that they thought there was something there but couldn't confirm the findings. Yet, in colleges, professors tout this experiment as 'the' saint-graal of prove of 'time dilation'. I am all for scientific advancement and discovery and Webb is taking strides in shaking our beliefs about different theories that we put forth decades ago. We should pay attention to the verbose we use and always remind the audience that theories are theories. Some are well based, others, not.

[@timeflex]

I don't understand. If distant galaxies are redshifted due to space expansion, how come they TRAVEL at relativistic speeds? And what to do with those which speed > C ?

[@tomwojcik9342]

This is old news! And muons do not come from black holes... Time dilation belongs to the traveling body per Lorentz Transformation... The incoming speed is relativistic and T1 approaches 0 as v1 approaches the speed of light c (for the muon the trip is almost instantaneous)

[@skeltek7487]

The stupidity and madness of other scientists sometimes frustrates me. Everything we measure in Astronomy lets us put all the data in a set of equations, but the set is always incomplete missing at least one parameter, since we only get to see a single cross-section of out past light cone. Basic math tells us we can't determine at least one variable - even if we were to measure our field of view for more than just a cosmological instant but over time. Expansion of space with static particle 'sizes' is indistinguishable from a having space static and particle sizes shrinking. Both models are phenomenologically isomorph to each other - only our formulas make a distinction. Both models predict a perceived redshift, black-body spectrum of the CMD, cosmological horizon, decoupling of micro- and macro-cosmos, 'time dillation' at the early stages of the universe and so on. Both models are absolutely equivalent in interpretations, but our choice on how to interpret the measurements and where to fix the gauge in place determine and change our whole way of thinking, making simple facts difficult to recognize, shifting our point of view and distorting our tendencies on what to consider the most probable theory models (formulas get differing simplicity depending on what the bigger model is, which they are embedded in) and assess probabilities of causal relations(Ockham's razor is stupid anyway, but it gets applied even at wrong places if the formulas look different). But still we teach our children and follow-up astronomers the shit of old (and nothing else), making most of them mentally inflexible and incapable to even comprehend the phenomenoloic equivalency of the different interpretations.