I'm just glad I'm not smort enough to have someone like Feynman publicly call me stupid. Imma just keep my head down over here, stick to my stone knives and bearskins, and keep watching Petrov's videos. Yours truly, Grug.
@carolynnunes39229 ай бұрын
Move to Mars, and then come back here-you’ll be able to grok a la Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land…
@M167A19 ай бұрын
@@carolynnunes3922 Lazarus Long!
@FMDD1689 ай бұрын
Wrong, Diphthong. Yours truly, Groot.
@wesbaumguardner88299 ай бұрын
Yeah, having a popular moron call you stupid can make you feel stupid even if you are not.
@DefaultUser619 ай бұрын
😂
@EmeraldView9 ай бұрын
Light has every right to get tired.
@carolynnunes39229 ай бұрын
🥹😅😂🤣Funny! Thanks for the guffaws!
@tvviewer45009 ай бұрын
its all relative
@illegal_space_alien9 ай бұрын
Anton missed out at 6:25. Tired light should've been put to bed.
@studio107bgallery49 ай бұрын
It’s the infinity effect
@davemi009 ай бұрын
Is all Light related or just relatives? How long is a single light beam? How long can a light beam travel? Do older light beams look different than younger light beams?
@2nostromo9 ай бұрын
I think it was Leo Szilard who said, "Mediocre scientists should be paid not to do science." I must agree. Still waiting for that first check.
@queenlip61529 ай бұрын
I'm joining you. Has to be better than retirement benefits.
@shaynegallagher60069 ай бұрын
Cheque
@2nostromo9 ай бұрын
@@shaynegallagher6006 Mate
@rabbitonthemoon9 ай бұрын
Yeah they should just start KZbin channels right?
@aerfwefd73349 ай бұрын
@@shaynegallagher6006 Check. We are not French barbarians.
@Mitch_De_Jong9 ай бұрын
“Time flies when your having fun” -light going from beginning of time to end of time in no time
@High-Overlord-Pugula9 ай бұрын
I'm 27 billion years old and I don't remember a universe being around in my teenage years
@user-rc7gz4ok4e9 ай бұрын
You give new meaning to the expression 'Long in the Tooth'
@RazvanMihaeanu9 ай бұрын
Comparing to me, your 93 billion years old grandpa... you're very young, my 27-ish billion years olf grand-grandchild. Funny how your newborn offsprings, my grand-grand-grandchildren, are starting to brag with their almost 14 billion years age.
@ShawnKavanagh9 ай бұрын
How much you must've changed, and yet, stayed the same
@Max_R_MaMint9 ай бұрын
Depends on where you were. We had several move in, and well. . . here we are. Seem to be everywhere now.
@swampdonk3y7129 ай бұрын
Cornpop is a bad dude!
@marksuplinskas34749 ай бұрын
Thanks!
@pirobot668beta9 ай бұрын
Tired light? Last time I heard this theory I was in High School...1974! Damn...that was really 50 years ago?
@douglaswilkinson57009 ай бұрын
Light does not experience time since it travels at c.
@johnkelly77579 ай бұрын
I graduated '74.
@pirobot668beta9 ай бұрын
@@douglaswilkinson5700 But light has momentum...light bends this way, that way...never in a straight line...gravity and all that. Point being, accelerating a thingee takes energy, bending light is not 'free'.
@jadegecko9 ай бұрын
@@pirobot668beta Light bends due to following spacetime curvature, not due to being accelerated.
@pi-26279 ай бұрын
@@pirobot668beta Well, I think the bending of light due to gravity is not so much force being applied, expending energy, rather, its space itself bending. So, to light's perspective, its traveling in a straight line.
@philiphumphrey15489 ай бұрын
"Tired light" is a wonderful example of formulating a hypothesis and then testing it by experiment or observation. In this case the hypothesis failed, but science still progressed.
@arctic_haze9 ай бұрын
I do not see much progress here. This failed hypothesis did not led to anything useful. If I propose that there is a small dwarf standing on every nucleon, would falsifying my hypothesis add anything to physics?
@JosePineda-cy6om9 ай бұрын
@arctic_haze falsifying the "tired photon" hypothesis provided plenty of new data sets that confirmed the "universe expands" hypothesis. What would falsifying your dwarf "hypothesis" contribute to?
@arctic_haze9 ай бұрын
@@JosePineda-cy6om This is nothing like the war has been won in the 1960s against the steady state hypothesis. Tired photons did not triggered much research, only some papers on time dilatation in quasars and surface brightness of the galaxies. So yes, technically that was progress but very local and limited one.
@jjt18819 ай бұрын
@@arctic_hazeThat is an outstanding example that I thought of decades ago, almost verbatim.
@arctic_haze9 ай бұрын
@@jjt1881 What exactly?
@Sk0p3r4209 ай бұрын
Even in the darkest of times, Anton is still there covering all the fascinating science topics and calling us Wonderful Persons whilst being the Most Wonderful Person ;)
@finophile9 ай бұрын
agreed ... its pretty much the only reason I remain subscribed
@amlord38269 ай бұрын
Dark times?
@johnmarkson19909 ай бұрын
@AndyWitmyer its midnight here in the UK. thats what he means by dark times.
@Sk0p3r4209 ай бұрын
@Israelisnotourfriend it is ;)
@barbaraarsenault11929 ай бұрын
Agree.
@stancartmankenny9 ай бұрын
dum kweshun - since the universe is expanding, shouldn't far away objects appear not only red-shifted, but also larger than they actually are? Because the light coming from them is passing through space that is not only getting stretched in the direction of travel, but also stretched side-to-side? So galaxies from the beginning of galaxy formation would appear magnified compared to how those same galaxies would appear if they were near by?
@bjornfeuerbacher55149 ай бұрын
Yes, and that has been known for decades, and is taken into account.
@andrewferguson69019 ай бұрын
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 nice
@jonathanhockey99439 ай бұрын
Perhaps the blurriness should be an issue if it is distortion at larger distances, but one easily modify the hypothesis and say the blurriness will be seen at a bigger scale, just like they modify in string theory for undetected particles by saying they are heavier or require more energy and bigger colliders...
@bjornfeuerbacher55149 ай бұрын
@@jonathanhockey9943No, the blurriness can't be modified that easily, it results from known physical processes. And I think you confuse string theory with supersymmetry.
@gustavotogni14379 ай бұрын
Thank you, Anton, once again for such amazing content ❤
@garrymartin64749 ай бұрын
Cherry picking data to fit an idea ? Where else may this be happening ?
@amlord38269 ай бұрын
Pretty much every study everywhere
@weltschmerzistofthaufig24409 ай бұрын
@@amlord3826 You clearly haven't conducted a single scientific study before.
@chrisinhotwater98969 ай бұрын
Sometimes it happens. When I'm talking to my friends. About how many girls I dated.
@PsillyApeUSA9 ай бұрын
Climate alarmists
@theonebman75819 ай бұрын
@@PsillyApeUSAI have a conspiracy theory (××puts on tinfoil hat××) that climate doomers are paid by climate deniers to harm the fight against climate change lmao Because that's precisely what these people do - between false dates and critical alarmism, they push people away from a solution; why should you care about fighting against climate change if everything is doomed and there's nothing anyone could ever do? The worst way to fight climate change is to be an alarmist
@MarsStarcruiser9 ай бұрын
I must’ve missed something, why do they expect tired light to burr? It has other problems, but where exactly does this blurr idea come from?
@jonathanhockey99439 ай бұрын
Yes, would be interesting to hear the supposed "Mechanism" involved here. As this claim is often made. But never seen the supporting explanation of how or why.
@MarsStarcruiser9 ай бұрын
I’m actually on the fence between the two, but I doubt we’re anywhere near the proper evidence to legitimately estimate longer than we currently have just yet. But thanks to various developments, last I checked, the presumed energy of space itself was approximated at 5 protons per cubic meter. In order for space to continue expanding without incurring certain hypotheticals like “cosmic rip” etc… So even “inflation” itself may depend on certain elements brought up by the idea of “tired light”. So throwing out those notions completely may be part of why “crisis in cosmology” is even happening.
@braxon8 ай бұрын
@@MarsStarcruiser Wow, this string is chalk full of the pontification of people pretending knowledge.
@MarsStarcruiser8 ай бұрын
@@braxon Lots we don’t know lol. Only time will tell I guess
@braxon8 ай бұрын
@@MarsStarcruiser sure, but until then, the internet is sure to assume that every gap in our knowledge must be affirmative proof of the most ridiculous conclusions.
@MrPoole739 ай бұрын
Thank you Anton for providing such an eloquent explanation of the subject material! You always provide objective observations backed up with science, facts, and logical reasoning - something that is missing online... May you stay blessed.
@JJRed8889 ай бұрын
New research, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, suggests a phenomenon called “bursty star formation” that can easily explain the puzzle of apparently high mass galaxies in the early universe. Instead of the steady rate and gradual star formation typically observed in more modern and massive galaxies like the Milky Way, bursty star formation features short, intense periods of stellar birth and death followed by longer, quieter phases. According to the simulations, this flash-bulb approach of bursty star formation can lead to some early galaxies emitting so much light that it inflates their implied mass. Using new simulations, Northwestern University-led team of astrophysicists now has discovered that these galaxies likely are not so massive after all and are young. The apparent anomalies have also been traced to erroneously using standard estimates (called IMF, or initial mass functions) for mass, relevant to the Milky Way in our current universe, to the early universe (See Becky).
@breakingthewall21129 ай бұрын
Busty star lol that's funny. Try EU model is way more logically sound
@quantumcognition58279 ай бұрын
@SanityTV_Last_Sane_Man_Alive The tired light concept has been debunked repeatedly since it was first proposed by Fritz Zwicky almost a century ago. Zwicky himself was sceptical about the concept. Tired light will produce dimmer and more blurry objects. However, astrophysical observations do not observe this. In other words, there is no evidence of this. The brightness and clarity of the objects is checked, as a matter of routine procedure by professional astronomers before the redshift is confirmed. Furthermore, the time dilation, as predicted by Einstein’s General Relativity Theory, is actually seen in the decay time of supernova light curves. This confirms that the cosmic redshift and light curves are independent of any hypothetical “tired light.” The CMB also does not support the tired light hypothesis as it would look different if this hypothesis was true. The perfect blackbody spectrum of the CMB, actually observed by our most accurate scientific instruments, contradicts the tired light hypothesis. The hypothesis is not able to explain such a spectrum.
@scottryals31919 ай бұрын
It is possible that what we like to call the big bang is merely a local event in a much, much larger universe.
@irjensen9 ай бұрын
Yes!
@JB525209 ай бұрын
It's also possible that this is a simulated hell, and that the only real people are the ones who suffer constant punishment.
@lionelmessisburner73939 ай бұрын
Yes it is and I feel like a lot of astronomers talk about this being a real possibility however it’s incredibly hard to prove or disprove this
@Lioness_UTV9 ай бұрын
@@JB52520 This is hell? If so it's a pretty spectacular hell to live in if so.
@bjornfeuerbacher55149 ай бұрын
No. If the big bang had been an explosion happening at a specific point in an already existing larger universe, we would get _totally_ different observations.
@JosephBurdette9 ай бұрын
I love how the young earth creationist crowd was head over heels over the pop sci articles about the big bang being overturned but never bothered to check the source or stick around for the corrections.
@Soupy_loopy9 ай бұрын
This is irrelevant. This idea is about an older universe, which is the opposite of the creationists saying God created everything not too long ago.
@TyrianHaze9 ай бұрын
Not trying to be a buzz kill, but the big bang theory is a creationist theory. It's straight out of genesis I.
@MultiSpeedMetal9 ай бұрын
@@Soupy_loopyLast Thursdayism is the simple explanation for that from a theistic perspective.
@Cat_Woods9 ай бұрын
@@Soupy_loopy That's the whole point. Creationists always glom on to anything in science that is not understood and anything where the understanding changes based on evidence -- AS IF that boosts their case. It never does, but that doesn't stop them due to their exceedingly motivated reasoning. Have you ever heard them go on and on about the Cambrian Explosion? AS IF it proves that the earth was created in 6 days. If you tell them that it took tens of millions of years and ask which Cambrian fossil is their ancestor, they change the subject and soon enough go on about the Cambrian Explosion being evidence of a young earth again. They never correct themselves, they never bother to get the science right. And they did indeed do it again when this information from JWST came out about the universe looking older than we expect. Because they aren't about finding out what is true. They're about misrepresenting science to try to fit a mythology they've redefined as the capital T Truth.
@ThePaulv129 ай бұрын
@@MultiSpeedMetal Yeah I'd forgotten about Last Thursdayism. Oh I must mention there's no such thing as Last Thursdayism because as everyone knows, except you, it really is Last Tuesdayism.
@nomdeguerre72659 ай бұрын
Very well, and nicely, done!
@LimeEngine9 ай бұрын
You are a great science journalist! We appreciate your factual reporting and highly interesting topics! Keep it up:)
@gb-jg1ud9 ай бұрын
After all you have been through, thank you for sticking with it and producing these wonderful and knowledgeable videos, Anton.
@Nosirrbro6 ай бұрын
What has he been through? Did something awful happen to our poor boy Anton 😢
@mmaximk9 ай бұрын
To my eye, the distant ring galaxy visible inside Hoag’s object actually does look a great deal less in-focus than the foreground galaxy. As evidence against tired light, the claim of equivalent sharpness of image is not compelling.
@highviewbarbell9 ай бұрын
That's due to the resolution of the picture
@mmaximk9 ай бұрын
@@highviewbarbell So what you're saying is the raw data was in better focus but the picture isn't? Why would that be?
@highviewbarbell9 ай бұрын
@@mmaximk are you asking me why a digital picture doesn't have infinite resolution and zoom?
@mmaximk9 ай бұрын
@@highviewbarbell Anton offered that image as a demonstration of a foreground object and background object being equivalently sharp. As stated in my first comment, to my eye they do not look equivalently sharp. Your first reply agrees with my premise that they are not equally sharp but your explanation for why that is the case is not clear. My inquiry for clarification instead draws a defensive and nonsensical response. Neither object is at an infinite distance.
@RicardoMarlowFlamenco9 ай бұрын
The point was, as far away it is, it would not be visible, rather a blur. It is quite clear, maybe need readers?😂
@ranjitvictor6 ай бұрын
Many times I watch your videos just for that beautiful smile in the end. Keep marching Anton, you wonderful person.
@codydaniel30979 ай бұрын
Thank You again, Anton for yet another fantastic video! 👏
@nycpaull9 ай бұрын
I like the idea of thick and thin space just like the analogy of gravity bending and squeezing the "grid of space" on that trampoline with the bowling ball. Could space itself be dense in spots due to gravity waves colliding.
@sumofbitch9 ай бұрын
It is. Big attractor proves it
@BrianFedirko9 ай бұрын
Thank you Anton,, for allowing me to reminisce!: Constants change (modulate) over time, haha, is something I pondered as a youngster. I came up with it on my own, and with a little math learning, and chemistry, I quickly admitted defeat with the gain in knowledge to keep me studying and thinking like the adult that I have become. It's been over 30 years now, and the thought brings a slight smile to myself when I think back on it,, kinda like santa. The same type of thought nags me of late when I consider MOND. It's really cute, and I understand how it gets blown out of proportion now that we can freely put these ideas out on the net. Gr8! Peace ☮💜
@Isaac-gh5ku9 ай бұрын
Remember when we all thought our universe was 15 billion years old back in the 90s.
@umami02479 ай бұрын
Do we really know how old the universe is. I believe it is much older than what we understand. Like other predictions that are just wrong that have to do with the universe. And I’m not a big bang theory guy. It would be impossible for a singularity to expand to what we see now. The physics that could explain this doesn’t exist.
@bjornfeuerbacher55149 ай бұрын
"Do we really know how old the universe is." Yes. That can be determined by different methods, and the results agree with each other. "I believe it is much older than what we understand." Your belief is based on ignorance. You simply don't know all of the observations. "And I’m not a big bang theory guy." What's your alternative? "It would be impossible for a singularity to expand to what we see now. " Why? "The physics that could explain this doesn’t exist." Yes, it does. It's called "General Relativity". Has existed for over 100 years. Ever heard of that?
@mNag9 ай бұрын
Doesn't relativity already kind of explain tired light? Gravitational redshift. If you argue "the universe is isotropic and homogeneous" well that's all well and good, but gravitational waves are also a thing and are propagated at the speed of causality too. Which would mean that light is only ever effected by the gravity that it could see from it's propogation point.
@chrisoleary98769 ай бұрын
The best comments from the scientific world recently is the admission of "we don't know. " 😮😂😂😂
@peterj93518 ай бұрын
Happens very rarely, sadly.
@privateerburrows8 ай бұрын
Extra arguments: 1) Light travels at the speed of light, and therefore time slows down to zero from a photon's point of view; so a photon does not have enough time to get tired. 2) Energy has to go somewhere. If light loses energy, where does it go? We'd need some kind of "photon decay". 3) Constants could only change IF no net energy is riding on them. If changing a universal constant by a part per million would cause an energetic change in the universe equivalent to millions of supernovas, then it should require that sort of energy to affect the constant by that much.
@aresaurelian9 ай бұрын
I like the concept of grabbing new data, and redo the measurements every year using various methods, just to keep a continuous check of things. In a hundred years from now, any differentials would be visible in all these tested data.
@Damngoodcoffee_n_cherrypie9 ай бұрын
I understand photons don’t experience time from their frame of reference. Would the tired light hypothesis then contradict this principle given that it is premised on photons losing energy over time?
@visualedtech9 ай бұрын
The tired light theory makes more sense than assuming a Doppler effect supporting an expanding universe theory. I was a radar operator in the US Navy in the late 1960's. High frequency radars have a shorter effective range and were used in target acquisition systems. Low frequency radars were used for long range identification. High frequency electromagnetic emissions loose their energy more rapidly than low frequency radars. Light is an electromagnetic wave in the human visual spectrum, lower frequencies of light are called infrared. All of these electromagnetic emissions travel through vastness of the universe, they encounter charged particles, clouds of dust, and other electromagnetic waves from many sources. All of these encounters absorb energy from the full spectrum of emissions, the further the source, the more energy is lost. It seems more reasonable to me, that the further away a light source is, the light will be red shifted by the distance and not the velocity or direction of the source. The Hubble Constant is still valid, assuming that all light sources emit a full spectrum of electromagnetic waves. The "Big Bang" or expanding universe theory requires a starting point, a singularity, where nothing existed until it did, Sounds more like a scientific creationist theory. More will be learned in the future. There will be more versions of the James Web Telescope that will be stationed further out in our solar system. We will see much further, We may see billions of new galaxies. We may finally stare into infinity.
@davejones76329 ай бұрын
_"The tired light theory..."_ Does not exist. No mechanism, no evidence, and no need for it. _"The "Big Bang" or expanding universe theory requires a starting point, a singularity, where nothing existed until it did,"_ Wrong. That just shows that you do not understand what the BBT actually says. _"All of these encounters absorb energy from the full spectrum of emissions, the further the source, the more energy is lost."_ And would also cause blurring. Did you not watch the video?
@jumboegg58459 ай бұрын
@visualedtech The red shift is not explained in terms of a doppler effect, its not because the source of the light is moving away. The mathematical theory put it down to an expansion of the very fabric of space, the light is travelling through/in/on a medium that is expanding. The universe and its galaxies are not expanding into something, the universe itself (the fabric of space) is expanding. That's their current best model.
@davejones76329 ай бұрын
_"they encounter charged particles, clouds of dust, and other electromagnetic waves from many sources"_ All of which cause blurring of distant objects. Which is not seen. Fact is, tired light is considered crackpottery, because it is invoked by said crackpots without having a single viable mechanism. _"The "Big Bang" or expanding universe theory requires a starting point, a singularity, where nothing existed until it did,"_ Nope. That is a flat earth or creationist level explanation for what the BBT says. Hint: it does not say that.
@braxon8 ай бұрын
Does your high frequency emissions transform into low frequency emissions over time?
@lemurtheory93508 ай бұрын
I don't remember much of it but my favorite theory on the start is that there's something like a quantum field that some times vibrates and creates/disappears matter, when an area is voided enough some matter becomes stable and stays around. meaning the universe may have just slowly appeared over a large area at one time instead of in sudden bangs. also a question. have we noticed more red shifted lights in one or two directions more than the other directions?
@fizgak9 ай бұрын
We are blind men stumbling around in the dark.
@johnwalsh59999 ай бұрын
Thanks for clearing that uo Anton
@TechSY7309 ай бұрын
This would be a pretty funny resolution to the Crisis in Cosmology, if _all_ of them turned out to be wrong.
@kipkipper-lg9vl9 ай бұрын
That is almost certainly the caseb
@FMDD1689 ай бұрын
You're wrong, Diphthong
@theonebman75819 ай бұрын
We all know what the universe truly is A crab. The one true constant in time and space.
@CrossoverManiac9 ай бұрын
Quiet heretic. How do you think science works? By open discussion of experimental data?
@nicholasvinen9 ай бұрын
I thought it was turtles. All the way down!
@user-fy7ru4ii1i9 ай бұрын
In his thumbnails, this guy always looks like he's watching someone eat the last piece of cake, which he wanted.
@diktatoralexander889 ай бұрын
The thing that made me feel incensed was when I learned there is no scientific base for the multi-verse theory (the one where every decision splits into a identical universe, but where the other decision was taken). But so much media and even some scientists suggest it is more than likely true and there are numberless worlds just like our own existing and being made every second.
@Rand0mPeon9 ай бұрын
Yeah, you could say that they believe in the multiverse by… _blind faith._
@stephencorsaro9549 ай бұрын
There's a difference between science and belief. There always will be. You get to believe in anything you want to even if science says no way.
@diktatoralexander889 ай бұрын
@@stephencorsaro954 Its one thing to believe in something, it's another to teach your belief as though it is scientific and to pass it off to the masses as fact
@Nosirrbro6 ай бұрын
There is though, it is a prediction that falls naturally out of the Schrödinger equation which we have shown to be extremely successful at predicting the functioning of our universe. It’s just that what it is is an interpretation of quantum mechanics which inherently makes it impossible to directly verify, so no it’s not a scientific fact and almost certainly it never will be because we can’t observe it directly, but that is also equally true of all interpretations of quantum mechanics. Compare that to the much more bullshit idea people have that the universe “is most likely a simulation”. That isn’t an idea predicted by any successful theories, it’s basically just religion for nerds, but people do act like that has “real scientific reasoning”
@CaritasGothKaraoke9 ай бұрын
How can light lose energy over time when it doesn’t experience time because its local time is infinitely dilated?
@johnmiller26899 ай бұрын
I saw this "older universe" story pop-up on my Facebook page. I knew it was B.S. as soon as I saw it. Thanks for the video! 😊
@andrewbouskill54449 ай бұрын
Photon packet disbursement in gravitational, electromagnetic localities slows light, but this affect is local. Hence tired light is only tired at localities, and cannot exist in non-localities.
@deltacx10599 ай бұрын
3:34 i mean it makes sense if light is considered a wave, it can't move forever and maybe could work with the Doppler effect, the only way we can find out is to get more data. (Not saying it's correct by any means but still we need data to figure out what is actually going on)
@JB525209 ай бұрын
In the game of life, walkers will propagate forever unless they hit something. Not that the universe is like that. I'm just saying that it's possible for activity to propagate indefinitely in the right medium. Some waves can move forever.
@bjornfeuerbacher55149 ай бұрын
"it makes sense if light is considered a wave, it can't move forever" Huh? How does that follow?
@deltacx10599 ай бұрын
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 well the osculation of a wave is movement which changes direction so one would thing energy is used to do that unless light has a special thing going on or actually isn't a wave while traveling.
@bjornfeuerbacher55149 ай бұрын
@@deltacx1059 osculation? Do you perhaps mean oscillation? "is movement which changes direction so one would thing energy is used to do that" Do you _really_ want to claim that as waves propagate, energy is consumed, or what?!? If yes, you should read up on basic physics.
@seanrodgers18399 ай бұрын
So much for the University of Ottawa astronomy program. Glad I went to other university.
@tomholroyd75199 ай бұрын
The speed of light in vacuum is c. But our universe has been around a while. Space isn't a vacuum, it's full of electrons and protons, metal ions, EM fields, dust, and 13 billion years of other detritus that builds up over time. Space has a refractive index that varies in unknown ways as light travels to us. Not to mention gravitational effects. It's not "tired", it's bent.
@bjornfeuerbacher55149 ай бұрын
It is well known that light is "bent" a little bit on the way to us. This can be measured, this is taken into account.
@metoo8369 ай бұрын
I have to say, you are decent,rational,logical & beautiful minded .thank you🌷
@thomasbjarnelof21439 ай бұрын
Photons might get "tired" and loose fractions of there energy when they interact with virtual particles. This also makes some virtual particles convert to real matter conserving the constant of energy.
@MCsCreations9 ай бұрын
If you can make the equations to show that and demonstrate that this process would create more matter than antimatter... Dude, you could get a Nobel. Seriously, because it would also explain why there's so much matter compared to antimatter.
@arctic_haze9 ай бұрын
Yes but any kind of scattering would make the distant sources look diffuse. Anton explains this in his video.
@chucksweet75339 ай бұрын
Considering what we now know as a gravitational wave background, there can easily be an extra millimeter for every kilometer traveled due to gravitational effects on the photon, and that would add up and look a suspiciously lot like red shifting due to expansion, where the photon travels a non-perfectly linear path due to the photon riding up and down the gravitational waves as they pass through the same volume of space, such that the photon travels actually farther than a perfect line expectation measurement would give without the gravitational wave background. According to some physicists changing the timeline to 27.6B years ago for the Big Bang also gets rid of a lot of the Hubble Tension problems.
@pancake26629 ай бұрын
Don't believe in the Big Bang I believe it goes on forever and ever James Webb Telescope bring us perfect pictures love our universe .I expect to see chaos if there was a big bang out there. There's no chaos just beautiful galaxies.
@Daniel-pd2zn9 ай бұрын
It is so easy for all of this information to fly directly over everyone's head and become uninteresting, but Anton always seems to present the information in a way that is engaging and informative. Thank you for the amazing content as always!
@bryandraughn98309 ай бұрын
If people only understood the constraints that cosmologists have to deal with when they build an extremely complex model, they might understand. But I doubt it.
@clickounet9 ай бұрын
A question I ask myself, just a stupid theory that is probably wrong but anyway :) we cannot learn if we don’t ask and fail, right? Could it be that when the universe was young and small and dense- the mavity was such it was impacting the time and the speed of light itself, make the time run slower compare to today therefore 1 “year” at that time was shorter that what we perceive today - which maybe would give some sense to the great expansion at the beginning (it look faster than light from the current speed, but was at the right speed for the time) up to the point the mavity got no longer significant in the calculation. Which would kind of make the universe older as well? Stupid theory I am sure someone did think about it and discard it already.
@axle.student9 ай бұрын
Your question is tied up in the concept of inflation and the descriptions of what inflation is is ambiguous and difficult to interpret, as well as just being an unproven theory. It's an open question with no definitive answer.
@genelang96299 ай бұрын
Impossible to imagine what we don't know! We imagine ourselves as a highly advanced society until something very special comes to light. If our universe is as old as we previously thought, we're still scratching the surface of knowledge. Our history only goes back a few thousand years.
@AndrewBlucher9 ай бұрын
Impossible to imagine what we don't know? Rubbish. That means we would never learn anything. The opposite is true. We imagine things that we don't know. And also imagine things that are false.
@enlightenment37774 ай бұрын
Question to Anton: If red shift is due to expansion of fabric of space, and not doppler effect, then we should only see redshift from objects to the left of us and from object to right of us, if we are expanding left from the centre. Because, we will always be expanding slightly faster than objects on our left, whereas objects on our right, would always be expanding away, always faster. There would NEVER be a blue shift, regardless of where we were from the centre. If we were moving relative to fabric of space, then it would be possible to see blue shift, doppler effect. Has blue shift been observed? if it has, then fabric of space is NOT expanding..
@jaymxu9 ай бұрын
Thank you for explaining this propperly because the amount of times i have come across videos and comments of people who don't know any better who say it's that old and all that... Was pulling my heartstrings, now i can sleep a lttle easier knowing fhe public is informed propperly by Anton the Legend.
@Soupy_loopy9 ай бұрын
Calm down, I'm pretty sure that most people never heard of this to begin with. I didn't, and I watch science channels all the time.
@jaymxu9 ай бұрын
@@Soupy_loopy I ain't talking about you, shush.
@ThizzamajigАй бұрын
@@jaymxu you really just annoy everyone and don't have the self awareness to realize it. It's hilarious 😂
@jaymxuАй бұрын
@Thizzamajig Okay lil bro whatever makes you feel a lil more important 💀
@ThizzamajigАй бұрын
@@jaymxu says the guy that writes meaningless novels in comment sections and then thinks he deserves a prize for being insufferable 😂
@crow29899 ай бұрын
Someone tried to call me a fool because i didn’t know the universe was actually 27bn years old but when i asked for a source, read that source and then critique the way the data was used and interpreted, i got no reply. So goofy
@shawns07629 ай бұрын
Dark matter is dilated mass. In the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" Einstein wrote - "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of G.R. predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon behind the phrase "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". A graph illustrates its squared nature, dilation increases at an exponential rate the closer you get to the speed of light. A "time dilation" graph illustrates the same phenomenon, it's not just time that gets dilated. Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. There is no singularity/black hole at the center of our galaxy. It can be inferred mathematically that dilation is occurring there. In other words that mass is all around us. This is the explanation for galaxy rotation curves. The "missing mass" is dilated mass. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. To date, 6 very low mass galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 have been confirmed to show no signs of dark matter. This also explains why all planets and all binary stars have normal rotation rates, not 3 times normal. The concept of singularities is preventing clarity in astronomy. Einstein is known to have repeatedly said that they cannot exist. Nobody believed in them when he was alive including Plank, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg, Feynman etc.
@shawns07629 ай бұрын
@ConontheBinarian General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. Dilation is the elephant in the room explanation for galaxy rotation curves
@RicardoMarlowFlamenco9 ай бұрын
Penrose demonstrated singularity to be inevitable. Not sure but I assume massive particles are destroyed before they have a chance to reach light speed anyway. Final issues being information loss due to Hawking radiation but that has also not been observed. Safe to say the event horizon at least has been observed, therefore, a possibility the singularity is behind it as implied.
@shawns07629 ай бұрын
@@RicardoMarlowFlamenco There is no singularities, Hawking radiation or event horizons. Black holes were popularized by television and movies beginning in the 1960's. What we see in modern astronomy has been known since 1925. This is when the existence of galaxies was confirmed. It was clear that there should be an astronomical quantity of light emanating from our own galactic center.
@bjornfeuerbacher55149 ай бұрын
@@shawns0762 "General Relativity predicts dilation, not singularities. " I already told you several times that GR predicts _both_. Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? "Dilation is the elephant in the room explanation for galaxy rotation curves" Show your math.
@Pzevv9 ай бұрын
I'm certainly no physicist, but a while back I came up with the idea that parts of a wave function that get consumed by black holes cannot collapse backwards through the event horizon. Traveling particles would appear to lose energy the further they get from their source, specifically a decrease of distance traveled squared, and a smaller cubed component, based on the surface area and volume respectively, of the virtual relativistic sphere that the wave function could exist in. This would also let us map the evolution of the density of primordial black holes throughout the lifetime of the universe. Idk how quantum physics would handle collapsing only part of a wave function and letting the other half persist, but I thought it was an interesting idea when I was in college lol (I understand wave functions more now haha) It's fun to try to come up with novel solutions, it's just important to acknowledge them as highly speculative, and not cherry pick evidence that specifically backs up your idea 😊 Much love to all the scientists who are willing to self-criticize 💛
@costrio9 ай бұрын
Photon man: "I just flew in from Betelgeuse and boy am I tired! Really, you wouldn't believe the traffic I had to squeeze through just to get here. Good old "Juicy" let one rip? ;)
@douglaswilkinson57009 ай бұрын
Light cannot be tired. It does not experience time.
@mattthompson86719 ай бұрын
I thought you were going to say …” I just flew in, and boy are my arms tired! “
@jonogrimmer60139 ай бұрын
Great explanation, you make scientific theories much easier to understand.
@Martiandawn9 ай бұрын
So, on the one hand, there would be an unknown mechanism that is stretching out the wavelength of individual photons, perhaps at the quantum scale, involving relatively small amounts of energy. On the other hand, we have an unknown mechanism that is expanding the entire universe, stretching out the wavelength of individual photons in the process, involving staggeringly incomprehensible amounts of energy on a cosmological scale. Hmm....
@bjornfeuerbacher55149 ай бұрын
"involving relatively small amounts of energy. ... involving staggeringly incomprehensible amounts of energy on a cosmological scale" ??? What on Earth are you talking about? The amount of energy obviously is the same in both cases, since they result in the same observed redshift!
@Martiandawn9 ай бұрын
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Are you sure that you understand how cosmological redshift works? As the universe expands, that expansion stretches out the wavelength of the light passing through space. The "staggeringly incomprehensible amounts of energy" to which I refer in that instance is the energy required to expand space, not the energy required to stretch the light. A tremendous amount of energy would indeed be required to expand the universe; that is why physicists say dark energy would have to make up 68% of the energy in the observable universe. It does not follow that stretching the wavelength of light by any other, currently unknown mechanism would require the same amount of energy as is required to expand space itself. For example, if virtual particles created transient spacetime curvatures that have an effect akin to gravitational redshift on passing light, the amount of energy involved would be, relatively speaking, much smaller than that required to expand the universe 😉 Though... in truth, virtual particles do not strike me as a likely candidate for an "unknown mechanism" responsible for observed redshift, since those transient spacetime curvatures should, in theory, cause light to blueshift as it entered them, then redshift as it exited them - with a net wavelength change of zero 🤣
@j.f.christ84219 ай бұрын
@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 It's a fair observation. Either the universe is getting bigger, or stuff inside the universe is getting bigger. I'd say making the universe bigger would need a wee little more energy than stretching a few photons.
@joeyholthusen64959 ай бұрын
How does one put a number on infinity
@ericlancaster4129 ай бұрын
Thank you for this. I'd heard about this hypothesis but had no idea whether it was well founded or not. Your video so helpful.
@Casimir-t3i9 ай бұрын
Changing constants over cosmological timescales is one of those areas I've wondered about. It's nice to learn about the evidence that refutes the idea.
@jamesjohnson-corwin38289 ай бұрын
This is comparable to looking at the street light at the top of my street and saying the known universe ends there, 13 billion light years, 28 billion light years... it's still only the street light at the top of our street. More questions, the better... love your Channel Anton!!!! 😊🎉
@bjornfeuerbacher55149 ай бұрын
No, that is not comparable at all! No one is talking about where the universe ends! What on Earth are you talking about?!?
@jamesjohnson-corwin38289 ай бұрын
Yes, you are correct! Thank you!
@willemvandebeek9 ай бұрын
Finally a good tired light hypothesis explanation, thank you!
@Taomantom9 ай бұрын
How does something that is emitted and immediately absorbed, and for it time does not exist, get fatigued? We travel as a wave and arrive as a particle...instantaneously as far as the wave/particle duality is concerned.
@Paul_Rohde9 ай бұрын
The name "tired" is misleading, or, it is a leading word. It's like the old question, why are moths attracted to the lights. The word "attracted" is leading. It took so long to figure that one out as moths aren't attracted to lights. Their navigation system is disrupted. As a hypothesis, say if the light was influenced by an interaction to become a longer wavelength (for example, as in the Wolf effect), the resulting longer wave length light should not be regarded as tired. Your are right, the word tired is wrong.
@robhaver87049 ай бұрын
i still remember watching the live report on the Higgs-Bosson particle from the VLC in Geneva, when it was called out it was a 'split decision' between our current 'periodic table model' and/or transferring towards a complete overhaul into our view of space-, and time, and how this decision was made based on absolutely nothing more than a nostalgia towards our current system and the loyalty shown towards those scientists that created the periodic table, rather than actual proof. that decision was such an eye-opener for me that my 'grain of salt' idea got only more footing about our origens and science as a whole.
@PrimordialOracleOfManyWorlds9 ай бұрын
a very passionate, fantastic video. a very outspoken vibe to it.
@Maungateitei9 ай бұрын
As Einstein said, "I was wrong to suggest that there was no substrate that light waved in, and the assumption of a cosmological constant was my biggest mistake". Seriously Anton. If you don't believe light gets redshifted over distance, you don't understand that magnetism affects charged particles.
@michaeltape82829 ай бұрын
Yeah, I think the University of Ottawa proposal is pretty weak. Doing science, you've got to get as comfortable as possible with knowing that you don't know yet. Thanks Anton.
@jimcurtis90529 ай бұрын
Wonderful as always Anton. Thank you. 😉👍
@Xibyth9 ай бұрын
I mean, we know light is affected by gravity. It's quite possible that the pull on light along with slingshoting around galaxies likely affects light velocity in many ways in addition to the matter dispersed in space. No part of our universe is ever truly empty. As for the claim, it would blur images, I very much doubt that. No effect like this has ever been observed, telescopes don't work like eyes. Ultimately I think using light is a bad idea for determining the age of the universe. The speed of light is only constant in a perfect vacuum.
@elbasta9 ай бұрын
Can't wait to read your peer-reviewed paper.
@douglaswilkinson57009 ай бұрын
Mass curves spacetime. Light in a vacuum travels along this curvature. The velocity of light is a constant to all observers.
@RicardoMarlowFlamenco9 ай бұрын
Simple put, light changes speed as it interacts with a medium, Cherenkov radiation and such, moving through water, etc. a photon takes years to exit the Sun … however once uninhibited in vacuum it moves exactly at C.
@bjornfeuerbacher55149 ай бұрын
"It's quite possible that the pull on light along with slingshoting around galaxies likely affects light velocity in many ways in addition to the matter dispersed in space." Yes, this has been known for decades, this has been measured, this is taken into account by cosmologists. "The speed of light is only constant in a perfect vacuum." Space is so near to a perfect vacuum that there are only ___VERY___ small effects on light. "Ultimately I think using light is a bad idea for determining the age of the universe." So what else do you suggest? And: Did you consider that we can also measure the ages of indivual stars, and these ages agree in essential all cases with the age of the universe determined in other ways?
@rubenducheny27882 ай бұрын
What a great video! Thank you!
@OakInch9 ай бұрын
There are several solid mechanisms behind light red shifting without expansion and the ridiculous big bang theory. What would be weird is light not red shifting over 90 billion miles. And the CMB is exactly what you would expect to see in a steady state universe. No matter which way you look, you would see old light that is highly redshifted. It doesn't have to be big bang residue. It can come from just an eternal field of stars. Unfortunately, it is...very blurry.
@weltschmerzistofthaufig24409 ай бұрын
How do you explain Hubble expansion without the Big Bang model, then?
@OakInch9 ай бұрын
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Wait... you still think expansion is based on a giant explosion? No one believes that is the cause of expansion anymore. Even the people that still attach the big bang to start of expansion, like some kind of prehensile tail, don't believe that is the reason they believe the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.
@johnrap72039 ай бұрын
@@OakInch You stated that "the CMB ("CME" was a typo, wasn't it?) is exactly what one would expect to see in a steady state universe." No. You have that wrong. "The steady state theory was disproved using two observations: (1) counts of radio sources and (2) cosmic microwave background radiation." "For most cosmologists, the refutation of the steady-state model came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, which was predicted by the Big Bang theory." The detection of, and the observations of, the CMB were actually the refutation, and not the evidence for, that you have erroneously claimed.
@OakInch9 ай бұрын
@@johnrap7203CMB. No. You would expect to see red shifted light in all directions for a more steady state centered theory. It doesn't have to be exact steady state. It can certainly happen with no big bang. You really said nothing that refutes it. If things far away always red shift, due to expansion, or some other reason, and not the big bang, why would you expect anything less than a lot of microwave frequency light in all directions? The CMB does not prove the big bang theory. It proves there is Microwave light coming from all directions. That is it. That is exactly what you would expect from an infinite universe. An endless sea of red shifted light. The current science is that all light red shifts due to accelerating expansion, not the big bang throwing things outwards. So the CMB does not prove the big bang theory. It is just far red shifted light that could come from far away things. The comment about radio sources also is not a proof of the big bang. Basically what I am saying is those things you mentioned are already outdated by newer theories of inflation and exponential expansion which explain red shifted light. I am saying those same theories apply to a non big bang universe. Big bang is just something they tack onto the front of these theories like a prehensile tail.
@bjornfeuerbacher55149 ай бұрын
"There are several solid mechanisms behind light red shifting without expansion" For example? And how do you explain all the _other_ evidence we have for expansion, _additional_ to redshift? "What would be weird is light not red shifting over 90 billion miles." Did you confuse miles and lightyears here, or what? :D "And the CMB is exactly what you would expect to see in a steady state universe. " Show your math. Explain the perfect black body spectrum of the CMBR. Explain its power spectrum. Explain the acoustic peaks. " It can come from just an eternal field of stars. " No, it can't, it would have a totally different spectrum. The combined light of all stars actually _has_ been observed, at a _different_ wavelenght, with a _different_ spectrum from the CMBR.
@johncherwonogrodzky9219 ай бұрын
- Do red stars very far away appear more red due to the "red shift"? - Gravity around a massive star or galaxy causes bending of space-time. It reminds me of the bending of light due to the refractive index of glass. Is the "red shift" just "the prism effect"?
@ds_the_rn9 ай бұрын
I’m 50. I feel like I’m 80. I can understand if the Universe feels older than it really is. It’s been through a lot. Those black holes really suck the life out of you.
@ThinkingBetter9 ай бұрын
Since light is bent by gravity, light is causing forces impacting motion of objects having gravity. With that reasoning, isn't it to be expected that light will lose frequency (red-shift) as it moves through space and interacts with gravity?
@michaelstiller22829 ай бұрын
0:15 Bro, there were hundreds of JWST hype videos, where people made predictions about the distant observations, when the JWST was on the ground. "We will see the birth of the universe. The first generation galaxies and stars. We would see from the birth of the universe to modern day." The collisions, of baby galaxies, from the dusk of the dark age. One thing was right, we can see as far back as they said we would. They didn't find what they said we would.
@tenbear59 ай бұрын
yeah, but don’t pop Anton’s bubbie.
@bjornfeuerbacher55149 ай бұрын
"We will see the birth of the universe." No scientist ever said that. "They didn't find what they said we would." Yes, they did. You only don't see that reported in the media - because the media likes only sensational news, not "we found what we expected".
@ProfessorJayTee8 ай бұрын
Very nice, Anton! I am constantly trying to point out to people that work on "modified gravity" hypotheses is all very well as a thought experiment, but thinking that it will instantly override all existing observations that disagree with the concept is just plain ridiculous! Think I'll bookmark that article for sharing at them.
@davejones76328 ай бұрын
And modified gravity does not cause lensing!
@arieverhoeff91419 ай бұрын
thx Anton, for your clear explanation why tired light hypothesis is probably wrong. Since there were no updates from scientists who endorsed the hypothesis I already thought it might be wrong. Thx for the background information.
@arctic_haze9 ай бұрын
Anton has mostly retold a website named "Errors in Tired Light Cosmology". Yes, there are several problems that tired light creates why solving none.
@jeremiahlynn95849 ай бұрын
Wait, huh? And coming up with a completely invisible, non reactive particle with mass that has never been observed to fit all the rest of the data is not cherry picking? And also, the constants could have been completely different prior to the event of the CMB. He wasnt arguing that things got tired or changed recently, but mostly in the early universe. I mean, all the math dudes still talk about singularities like those make any sense at all also.
@davejones76329 ай бұрын
_" I mean, all the math dudes still talk about singularities like those make any sense at all also."_ Nobody thinks singularities are real. They are a mathematical artefact.
@anthonyrader34669 ай бұрын
Speaking of tired light, I remember listening to a scientist, Roger Penrose I think it was, who had a theory that the speed of light may not be constant, but may slow down over time. Not being a scientist myself I'm not sure if this would affect the red shift or not or how that slowing down would affect our perception of the age of the universe. Not even sure if it could be proven. Not sure how his theory worked but if I remember correctly it went something like the speed of light would slow down to a critical point and that would be the end of our universe, but the beginning of another big bang and the creation of another universe after ours. It was pretty interesting, but the theory was way out of my league for understanding how the nuts and bolts of the thing actually worked. .
@bjornfeuerbacher55149 ай бұрын
Err, did you miss the part of the video where Anton was addressing exactly this? (a change in the constants of nature)
@axle.student9 ай бұрын
"who had a theory that the speed of light may not be constant, but may slow down over time." It is not implausible under the concepts of inflation. I would even go as far to suggest that this may be a fundamental aspect of time-space. I am not an indentured physicist.
@noiJadisCailleach9 ай бұрын
9:36 How can we say this is a reliable metric for a constant? What if things are actually expanding/contracting and the observer changes with the constant, making it look like we're observing the same values?
@axle.student9 ай бұрын
It's a flaw in inflation theory (or at least in my educated mind). Space time is expanding, yet matter is not expanding with it, and distance is not expanding with it.
@michaellee64899 ай бұрын
Redshift is caused by an increase in wavelength, not a loss in velocity or energy. Stay Wonderful, Anton!
@RurikLoderr9 ай бұрын
It still loses energy though... E = (hc)/λ
@AntonioDellElceUK9 ай бұрын
The "loss in energy" was a reference to the "Tired light" hypothesis
@AMildCaseOfCovid9 ай бұрын
@@AntonioDellElceUK Which actually sounds far more plausible than a universe expanding at the speed of light :D
@Bit-while_going9 ай бұрын
If some of the photons were lost out of the signal, then distant galaxies would appear to dim rather than fade. The photons remaining would still be sharp and in focus. The waves of photons may redshift simply because less of them would cause some of them waves of photons to disappear entirely. Maybe there's a chance they just get grabbed up on their way past a random proton.
@wetbadger29 ай бұрын
Conservation of energy does not hold in an expanding universe.
@alexugur9 ай бұрын
I think there is an epistemological element to such considerations. Logically, time is a mere concept derived from the comparison of processes. For me, there is only the present moment, which by force of circumstance means everything all at once. The implications in terms of relationship are huge, indeed unfathomable. In essence, the present moment is part of a dynamic, everything recreating itself from moment to moment. It follows that creation was not some event in the past, but that creation is and always has been in the present moment.
@weltschmerzistofthaufig24409 ай бұрын
No, time is a fundamental aspect of the universe. It is the temporal dimension that marks the gradual increase of entropy in the universe, and is one of the fundamental units of measurement. Calling time a concept is like calling distance or speed concepts that don't exist in the real world.
@alexugur9 ай бұрын
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440Time isn't fundamental to the universe, but fundamental to our current understanding of it. All of these measures are derivatives based on comparison. They are part of a Newtonian world view and extremely useful for things such as engineering. However, within the Newtonian world view, the second law of thermodynamics is the most vexing, as from a human perspective (our current state of knowledge) it would seem be the only irreversible law in physics. Why is that?
@axle.student9 ай бұрын
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Time being fundamental to the universe is an interesting discussion. Also real and not real is an interesting discussion. Being able to define real and not real is a difficult task. I would be willing to declare time as being fundamental and real, but not physical in any spatial sense.
@alexlewin99979 ай бұрын
The bit about the Tolman test was very brief and skipped over all the detail. I have heard that the surface brightness of distant galaxies is assumed to be much brighter than local galaxies to try to account for the discrepancy with the size / brightness test. Could it be that it's only the dense & bright galaxies that we are able to see?
@lynnealuebben19679 ай бұрын
As a female educator I have to point out that in order to debate a topic or propose a difference of opinion one does not have to qualify the author of the original paper as stupid. We would say that weakens the second paper substantially. Proving any hypothesis of this magnitude as disproven simply because there is a wealth of papers is not very good science. Unless something is a 100 percent provable 100 percent of the time it is still in hypothesis form. Take for instance blue LED spectrum, the wealth of data proving it to be impossible or impractical was there. One scientist with a tenacity proved them wrong. The individual utilized for disproving a theory or hypothesis would have failed in their submission as using opinion based verbage....is not how debate and discourse work... There was also a lot of papers on the big bang and look where we are now...rethinking. That's how science works, especially when we the observers are just a pinpoint on a pinpoint in the vastness that is the universe. Love your work Anton, but I feel the quoted piece at 1:49 is speculative. I am not in agreement with either person but ideas are just that, the spark for discovery and discovery happens over and over and some old ideas can have merit or a shred of merit. ❤
@Soupy_loopy9 ай бұрын
It's interesting that you feel the need to specify your gender before making this statement. As a man, I find it much easier to call someone stupid rather than argue with them about why they are wrong.
@bjornfeuerbacher55149 ай бұрын
"Unless something is a 100 percent provable 100 percent of the time it is still in hypothesis form." Thanks for showing that youdon't understand how science works.
@Rishi1234567899 ай бұрын
"As a female educator" I stopped reading there.
@Soupy_loopy9 ай бұрын
@Rishi123456789 come on, someone needs to educate females. Otherwise, they will all end up being teachers and complain about not making enough money for only working half a year.
@AnthonyRanch9 ай бұрын
Wonder if time speeds or slows over time instead of being a constant
@junkequation4 ай бұрын
Its speed can probably be measured out to several decimals, and, unless the change is extremely minute, I imagine it'd have been noticed by now
@Atok5959 ай бұрын
I took a flashlight into my bathroom and my toilet bowl bent the light. Massive dark matter helped.
@Massivedumps9 ай бұрын
🙌
@user-Aaron-9 ай бұрын
Your main account got banned or something so now you're spamming the same unfunny toilet joke everywhere with this one?
@aaronschuschu43149 ай бұрын
Lmfao
@lenney8729 ай бұрын
Genius
@WideCuriosity9 ай бұрын
That's a load of crap.
@VBH88888 ай бұрын
I have a question,🙋♂️ when we have gravitational lensing have we ever tried to see if we are looking into an internally flipped lensing to see if we are looking down a tunnel?
@zaiks01059 ай бұрын
If one is estimating the age based on light and telescopes, then one can never say with 100% precision. For that matter, I don't think science is enough to tackle this issue
@weltschmerzistofthaufig24409 ай бұрын
Using redshift calculations and spectrometry has given us many accurate results. Also, why do you say that Science is not enough to tackle this issue? It is the only way to figure out a solution.
@johnmarkson19909 ай бұрын
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 why not drop the ego and just ask god for the answer? we dont have to do all this alone you know.
@tiay62699 ай бұрын
@@johnmarkson1990 did he answer yet?
@sidsuspicious9 ай бұрын
@@johnmarkson1990
@benmcreynolds85819 ай бұрын
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440I think the OG comment was just trying to point out the truth. That no matter how much we try, we are limited to the perspective we've been dealt. There are limitations to what physics and the laws of nature will allow us to achieve, to measure, to observe. The rest is beyond our reach due to the limitations of the perspective we have. It doesn't mean you doubt science, it means you don't let ego get in the way of science. It's unrealistic to think will be able to discover all the answers related to our universe. No matter how far we advance, we will never be able to truly learn what happens when something gets sucked into a black hole? Also no matter how much we advance we will only be able to measure, observe so far around us in the universe UNLESS we (the observer) drastically moves but that would require such an immense distance to make even the smallest difference.. Even then, no matter how much we move there will always be aspects of the universe out of reach to observe due to the rate at which they are seeing the universe expand.. I think that's the kind of stuff the original comment was referring to.. I could be wrong tho..?
@breakingthewall21129 ай бұрын
So why do we find galaxies or stars that are connected yet one is far more red shifted? The answer is obvious and the idea that everything is moving away is not true
@dontforgetyoursunscreen9 ай бұрын
Provide an example
@davejones76329 ай бұрын
_"So why do we find galaxies or stars that are connected yet one is far more red shifted?"_ We don't. Simple. That was Arp's nonsense. Shown to be wrong in the case of Mrk 205 and NGC 4319, 32 years ago! Try to keep up. Nobody bothers with that nonsense these days. Very few did back in the 60s.
@breakingthewall21128 ай бұрын
@@dontforgetyoursunscreen There are multiple examples if you are interested in seeing these examples and alternative theories that more accurately describe the visible universe then check out the Thunderbolt project channel and the EU model as a whole. They do provide quite a bit of intriguing arguments and evidence to explain the various "surprises" that keep happening again and again with the James Webb telescope
@03chrisv9 ай бұрын
I'm sure people in a few centuries from now will watch many of our present day science videos while cringing or laughing at how wrong or simplistic our understanding was. Thats the thing about science, it's always tentative and is subject to be superseded by a better theory. I'm sure whole new fields of physics and even a paradigm shift about how we look at the universe is in our future.
@douglaswilkinson57009 ай бұрын
Newton's laws of motion are still valid and in use today. Planetary orbits, rocket trajectories, etc. all use Newton's laws. It's only when dealing with relativistic problems are Einstein's Theories required.
@theonebman75819 ай бұрын
Or maybe everything we know right now will get lost as society collapses worldwide We don't know what will happen, we just like to assume things will get better under the illusion of eternal linear progress, which has turned to not be that eternal nor linear after all
@amptunes9 ай бұрын
You should know a universe will never divulge its age.
@GAMakin9 ай бұрын
Ipso facto: "It" must be a "Real Lady".
@NikorouKitsunerou9 ай бұрын
I wouldn't throw out tired light as a phenomena as it is after all one of the primary indicators used to determine that most of the strange signals the Earth get hit with aren't from aliens. It can help explain some galaxies but not others where some seemly have more mass than others but putting a date on that sort of thing is a misunderstanding on how light still needs to interact with something like space dust or whatever to get "tired". I don't know how the permeability aspect get skipped over in these studies particularly with the CMB.
@bjornfeuerbacher55149 ай бұрын
"I wouldn't throw out tired light as a phenomena as it is after all one of the primary indicators used to determine that most of the strange signals the Earth get hit with aren't from aliens." What on Earth are you tallking about?!? Where, how, by whom etc. is tired light used for that?!
@Zach-h9k9 ай бұрын
Here's a question Anton. How "old" is a particular black hole? If we think about it, lets say we could prove that a certain black hole formed 1 billion years ago. But that's one billion years from our time frame on earth, at 1g of time dilation. But a black hole is, from our perspective, living in slow motion. If there were a life form within the event horizon of that black hole, they might only "be" 100 years old, while watching a billion years go by on earth. The same concept applies to any matter at differing degrees as it depends on the time dilation of the space it resides in.
@aaronbottke45559 ай бұрын
I've never gotten an answer to it. But where is the universe 13B years old? Only here? It seems pretty subjective to me🤷♂️ Hypothetically, wouldn't it be different if you were near a massive object?
@brunnomenxa9 ай бұрын
What are you talking about exactly? Are you implying that the age of the universe depends on where it is observed? Please clarify it.
@aaronbottke45559 ай бұрын
@brunnomenxa General relativity. But special relativity produces the same question for me. I don't understand how we could determine the universe is any specific age. Especially considering its expanding. Time varies with both speed and mass. So, how is it we can say it's 13.8 billion years old? Does the age of the universe vary depending on your frame of reference?
@user-Aaron-9 ай бұрын
The age of the universe refers to the time since the Big Bang, not to how much dilated time any particular thing within it has experienced. The "fabric" of space-time is not subject to time dilation as it does not itself travel through space nor experience time.
@aaronbottke45559 ай бұрын
@user-Aaron- Isn't all time and space dilated, though? There isn't a baseline, non-dilated clock is there? Not being facisios here. Genuinely curious If we go to a star, even just a few light years away, that is 10 or 20 times more massive than the sun. And we look deep into the background. Would we come up with the same number? I get that it's the amount of time since the Big Bang. But as relative time is variable, doesn't that scew the result?
@brunnomenxa9 ай бұрын
@@aaronbottke4555, Oh, I see. In the formula used to obtain the age of the universe, there's a variable for the average density of matter and energy present in our universe. We also have a factor related to the distances between astronomical objects and we also have the Hubble constant, but we don't know the exact value. From what I researched, space and time dilation are implicit in the relationship between these variables I mentioned above.
@davepitts20459 ай бұрын
Has anyone proposed a map of the universe based on known redshifted objects?
@colinthompson31119 ай бұрын
I am glad Anton focuses on physics papers and doesn't work for the government's taxation department. I usually take the log of my revenues. The gentleman, who wrote the papers, has some work ahead of him. This was an excellent video.
@JamesKelleyJr9 ай бұрын
You're the man Anton. That said and wholeheartedly meant I kinda dislike throwing cherry picker shade at this guy even if in this instance it may be warranted. So many awesome things have been discovered from people with new ideas scrubbing old data to fit their idea. Exoplanets, standard candles come to mind right away. For every correct theory using this kind of data mining or cherry picking method there is bound to be countless wiffs.. I don't think this is bad science per se... just somebody who got a little too fixed on something that he wanted to work too much.