The Big Ring Bashes the Big Bang

[@edengully]

Thank you for breaking down the Cosmological Principle so clearly, Eric. I'm so happy to see this wealth of new observations and data confirm what you have been preaching for decades. Exciting times!

[@Dutch2go]

You should get the Nobel prize for accurately predicting these structures 40 yrs ago and resolving all crises in cosmology.

[@kevconn441]

lol.

[@JorgeBrown]

Eric Lerner is a light in the darkness of present prison paradigm. It's always a real pleasure to be able to watch any of his brilliant and well structured presentations. His book, The Big Bang Never Happened is a must for anyone interested in cosmology and in need to scape off the bogdown of Big Bang theory! I am sure, his work at LPPFusion will fruttify and open the doors of cold fusion. I wish you, Dr Lerner, health and happiness to see your hard work bloom into the 21st century!

[@Paladin1873]

What doctorate has he earned? My understanding is he has a BA in Physics from Columbia University and some post graduate work.

[@JorgeBrown]

@@Paladin1873 Are we discussing titles or subject here?

[@Paladin1873]

@@JorgeBrownYou address him as doctor. Does he have a doctorate? If not, then the title is inappropriate.

[@zakmatew]

@@Paladin1873 That doesn't make him less precise when pointing out the massive problems with the Big Bang Theory.

[@Paladin1873]

@@zakmatew From what I've read, Eric Lerner is regarded as a fringe theorist by the most credentialed physicists, and is not seriously discussed in peer reviewed journals of physics. It only harms his reputation when falsehoods or exaggerations are spread regarding his credentials. Doing so only provides more ammunition to his opponents and therefore harms his theories.

[@MattAngiono]

Brian Keating did a poll recently asking if he should debate you on this.... Please do it and push him on these issues! He seems genuine enough about scientific inquiry, although he's kind of insulting towards your ideas about this. I would certainly love to see this discussed and I'll be rooting for you!

[@fuzzywzhe]

Debates are worthless. People go into debates to "win". A discussion would be interesting. In debates people will argue dishonestly, and it comes down to time as to who "wins". A common method is to bring up a bunch of unsubstantiated claims where there isn't enough time to address each claim and dismiss them. It's a fools errand to enter a debate.

[@MattAngiono]

@@fuzzywzhe I mostly agree, but that's just a term. What I'm interested in is the discussion and exposing different audiences to different viewpoints. I'm not looking for it to have judges or there to be a winner so much as to have the clash of ideas directly, where we can clearly see how people respond to criticisms. If both members come in with curiosity rather than a bone to pick, we all become smarter in the process

[@fuzzywzhe]

@@MattAngiono If there's something I've learned that was worth learning in the last 4 years is that people unwilling to talk to discuss their beliefs are almost invariably wrong. There's been growing evidence that the Big Bang, at least as we know it, didn't happen for a long time and that it's quite possible to that the universe is eternal.

[@nihlify]

It's hilarious you people get butthurt over scientists are "insulting" towards non-proven ideas while you idiots call them all kinds of names constantly.

[@michaelstiller2282]

Eric already called him out to debate the issues months ago. And Brian knows this. If i remember correctly he called out Brian, Becky, and Anton. As the 3 of them had pushed out smear videos.

[@Mosern1977]

I've been critical of the Big Bang theory for about 20 years now - after I started looking into the evidence to support it - and finding it all surprisingly lacking. And its continous ability to fail to predict future observations has been clear indication that my hunch was correct. From science philosophy standpoint it is interesting to watch how hard some scientist will try to defend a bad hypothesis - instead of just letting it go, and start working on some better ones.

[@Vile_Entity_3545]

How can anybody believe in what is just a theory anyway? We have observed a few decades in billions of years and we can say how it all started? Just because what we see at this moment in time does not give us the proof of a big bang. In a billion or two years the universe might be doing something else like slowing down and we would have another different theory. They just have to have a story and if it wasn’t for the big bang they would have a completely different theory. They would not just be sitting in limbo saying they just don’t know. There will always be a theory because there has to be. The simple thing is we will never know for certain. If it is eternal then there is no start and if it did start we are too far down the line to be able to see or make a 100% correct calculation of what happened. I gave up thinking about it long ago because what I just wrote is the conclusion of what I came up with.

[@nihlify]

The big bang theory is about the beginning of the universe and you think it should give predictions of the future? Are you brain damaged^?

[@desepticon4]

This doesn't necessarily invalidate the entire Lambda-CDM model, just tell us that it might be incomplete. The math still works for most things, so you need to explain that before adopting exotic solutions.

[@Mosern1977]

@@desepticon4 - same can be said about epicycles. When Dark Energy and Dark Matter is explained away, they might be on to something.

[@desepticon4]

@@Mosern1977 Sure, but its not enough to just say it like its a story. This is a fight for mathematicians.

[@Stevenscorch]

I love your verbal pacing. Such a well spoken speaker.

[@BB-cf9gx]

Thank you.

[@orionspur]

The Big Bang feels like a theory by physicists looking for a Creation myth.

[@TheFXofNewton]

Well. It is originally credited to a Catholic priest. And yes, that's exactly what he figured, the Big Bang was his interpretation of Genesis.

[@my-back-yard]

It was born out of the red-shift revelation.

[@orionspur]

@@TheFXofNewton 🤦🏼‍♂️

[@tinymetaltrees]

*creationists looking for a physics myth

[@handledav]

it is

[@tenbear5]

Keep up the fight/good work. 👋

[@Chris.Davies]

Who can, in good conscience, defend the Big Bang hypothesis in 2024? It certainly can't be classified as a theory.

[@regiscoppey1808]

Jean Pierre Petit does

[@Truthagainsttheworld8430]

So happy to see that some physicists have not lost their minds.

[@robertshulman1659]

It takes many years to grow the eyebrows needed to be a top rated scientist.

[@VectorMonz]

I just hate how cosmologists keep pretending they can know more about our universe than what is probably possible. A lot of cosmology needs to be put on hold until if we become an interstellar race. Staring at extra-solar systems with telescopes isn't good enough to get to the bottom galactic mechanisms.

[@JohnBoen]

5:50 It seems like a bad assumption to assume "average". If space is expanding, the earlier particles will have a much higher calculated velocity than the plasma that left later. Wouldn't a better velocity include a term for the expansion of space?

[@danielbast352]

If a person wasn’t taught that something is true, when if fact we do not know, life would be better. It so prevalent in every subject.

[@davestorm6718]

Eric, May I suggest you post your donations link, and home page, on this video (and every video you have up)? Some newer visitors may not know what your main website page is. This research is the best I've seen in decades and needs as much support as it can get, not to mention the educational aspect.

[@LPPFusion]

just forgot--thanks for reminding me.

[@dan.j.boydzkreationz]

Are they the periphery of a Birkeland current filament? Or does this prove Arp correct about intrinsic redshift?

[@fivish]

The BBT was never true. When the 'CMBR' was discovered, the BBT put it at 50K but Hoyle put it correctly at 3K. He knew it was the black body radiation of our galaxy. He coined the BBT name as an insult.

[@SwanOnChips]

Just listening to the Big Bangers own likely stories for observational findings raises eyebrows. Instead of looking for a new hypothesis they just come up with new stories!

[@thekingofmojacar5333]

Right from the beginning, the universe was so gigantic in size that it far exceeds our imagination! Thanks Eric, I always find something interesting here in LPPFusion! 🐭

[@janettomlin950]

Your information is great 😊

[@Zayden.Marxist]

How do you explain hubble tension and just red shift observations generally in this alternative to big bang theoretical framework?

[@forsakenquery]

A phenomenon that causes redshift through other means "tired light"

[@forsakenquery]

If you throw out the cosmological principle there are other explanations. Eg if we are in a local low density region, then gravitation around us will redshift the light.

[@romado59]

Even assuming plasma moving at 5000 Km/Sec there is not enough time to built these structures.

[@gristlevonraben]

this explains why they are pushing the idea that space can expand faster than light!

[@ChrisHobson916]

"It is smooth, like a well made pudding." 👍

[@tangledwing2750]

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Bravo Well done and very well presented.

[@davemcmillan4099]

U guys are the best❤..peace

[@gregoryallen0001]

this was a great video.. very clear info thank you!

[@John_Stewart]

At 22.33 Eric says the radius of the Big Ring is 1.1 bly so its diameter is 1.2 bly. This seems to be a verbal typo, unless I heard it wrong.

[@LPPFusion]

Linear radius depends on whether you assume cosmic expansion or not. If no expansion, radius is 1.1 billion, if expansion diameter is 1.2 billion. Factor of two difference, roughly.

[@tothally]

Now I don't understand it at all.

[@John_Stewart]

@@tothally Eric's reply to my question must have a typo. 12 billion should be 1.2 billion, but it is confusing anyway. At 2.30 Eric says the big ring is 1.2 bly "across", meaning diameter. But at 23.55 he says 1.2 bly in "radius". His reply notes that the observed big ring is interpreted as being 2 times larger in a non-expanding universe than in an expanding universe I understand that, but I wish he showed both types of measurements in a chart for clarity, and stuck to either diameter or radius. As it is, I don't know if 1.2 bly refers to radius or diameter, and if/when it uses the expanding or non-expanding interpretation. Anyway, it's still a great video.

[@LPPFusion]

@@John_Stewart right, typo corrected 9 months later. took time to gestate.

[@John_Stewart]

@@LPPFusion Thanks. Time is relative. Nice surprise to see your reply.

[@sonnygmony]

Tired light is absolutely the answer. Quite probably, the Universe is infinite and eternal in that the arrow of time is infinite and space and time are inextricably linked in causality. This makes a lot more sense than the "something from nothing" premise of the Big Bang.

[@janettomlin950]

What's the ring mad3 of, please?? 😊

[@LPPFusion]

Galaxies

[@alexlewin9997]

Is the electromagnetic axis of these rings pointing in our general direction? It kinda looks like it from that image.

[@emanuelsferios5783]

I learned so much from this video. Thank you!

[@charlesmaurer6214]

A Galaxy like structure of galaxies? Like solar systems mimicing atoms, and galaxies mimicing solar systems. Just another step larger.

[@rameyzamora1018]

OMG where have you been all my life, Dr Lerner??

[@StephenGoodfellow]

You're forgetting magic. The Big Bang could have been brought about by magic😆

[@domenicmonteleone2320]

Dark Magic

[@fallingsky1984]

😂

[@patrickmchargue7122]

I do hope that your theories on the universe are revisited by the astrophysical community. (with an open mind this time)

[@gregmonks]

Just a dumb question: if a star such as Betelgeuse were to move at, say, five times of speed of light, would we see it as moving, or would its apparent speed be invisible to the naked eye due to the scale of the object viewed?

[@MaxBrix]

I am totally on the same page.

[@dcorgard]

I wouldn't think he subscribes to redshift being solely from Doppler shift... though, if my thinking is correct, it shouldn't matter how far away the quasars used are, as long as they're behind this ring. And recent data from JWST strongly suggests, to my great surprise, that Tired Light is the most likely reason for distant objects appearing redder (that is, the 'residual red shift' - e.g. after quasars have settled down to their galaxy stage. Prior to them settling down due to age, intrinsic redshift, whatever its cause, appears to be strongly dominant in quasars).

[@tothally]

Plasma clouds causing red shift too and there are a lot of them in the universe.

[@heywayhighway]

Can this ring have anything to do with Penrose CCC theory?

[@MonicaHernandez-yn8ct]

Again Einstein was right. He said the universe was static, infinite.

[@anm3037]

Big Bang Religion is on trial

[@exponentialnegative1]

13:56 haha you mean it was a big headache for Einstein to ask his mathematician girlfriend to help him turn his romantic philosophy into physics equations 😂

[@exponentialnegative1]

Einstein was a great poet and a terrible mathematician

[@exponentialnegative1]

RIP Mileva

[@redshiftdrift]

A prediction is useful if it is not trivial. There are 10 structures listed on the wikipedia page List_of_largest_cosmic_structures which are incompatible with the cosmological principle. These structures range in size from 1.3 billion light-years to 10 billion light-years, so any size is possible. The "prediction" of structures of sizes 1.2 Gly and 4.9 Gly was eventually realized since we waited long enough to discover them. I can make the prediction that structures as large as 8 Gly and 13 Gly will be discovered, but that's not a useful prediction... It just says that the Big Bang model is wrong, nothing else.

[@nestorlopez7561]

This was very informative as well as easy to understand. It's just amazing what we can learn when we do not let assumptions become the rule/law. "A cow is sort of spherical isn't it?.

[@handledav]

BIG

[@AprilJMoon]

Cosmological theories are exactly what is in the title.. .. theories. At what point do astrophysicists abandon them when even a high-school kid can see that they are so full of holes that are badly patched with "ooh, let's add another few dimensions and play mathematical gymnastics". Sabine Hossenfelder and Brian Cox are keeping it real.. the latter always prefacing with "what we understand at the moment", or "nobody knows"

[@MyCatJeff]

With respect, Cox said light itself does not exist yet, beyond the reach of JWST. Idk if he's amended that statement, but I can't get behind whatever he's selling there.

[@st.armanini9521]

wait, I don't understand the basis of this kind of thought: how are these galaxies "a single object"?

[@MattAngiono]

It is about discernable structure. Not a "single" object, but a relatively large irregular distribution of mass. A "clump" where there should be a fog

[@alancham4]

Gravitationally bound structures… not single object. Think of leaves on the surface of a pool that are gathered into distinct clumps, moving as clumps through the currents of the water.

[@jasonbrady3606]

It may not have originated as a gravitationally bound structure. There's getting to be some consensus that the big ring is the consequence of electromagnetic filaments with opposite currents drawing themselves together and bringing the ionized gas with the electromagnetic field lines or filaments early in the universes evolution. That gas later condensed into the ring of galaxies.

[@maxtabmann6701]

There is also a problem with the cosmic microwave background radiation. Nobel prices were given but I never heared an explanation, how an electromagnetic point source can radiate back to us from all directions.

[@mikehannan8206]

Actually the problem with the CMB is even worse than that. The CMB is a "Black Body" spectrum, which can only come from condensed matter with a lattice structure, something non existant in the BBT's early universe. Check out Sky Scholar for the full details.

[@maxtabmann6701]

@@mikehannan8206 You are the first to admit this obvious contradiction. I have raised this concern to many physics professors and only got a whitewash. You are absolutely right with the observation that CMB has a Planck spectrum expressed in Watts per area and wavelenght range. What is the surface area here? Why was the Planck law never extended to thermally radiating gases, which do not have a surface but a volume?

[@giannismargaris9553]

@@maxtabmann6701 and on top that, in order to make the TREMENDOUS CLAIM that the cmb is the light from the early universe coming from all directions, you have to make sure that it is NOT a local "fog" of microwave radiation. In theory, if you go at a distant galaxy, lets say, 10 billion lights years away, and NOT detect the cmb, it just means that the cmb is a local event happening close to the milkiway galaxy. How can they make such a tremendous claim and reach such a conclusion so fast without first excluding all other possible causes of the cmb.

[@DavidCastro-pj1fd]

Dear Eric, thank you for sharing with us the deep understanding you have about more comprehensive explanations relating to the laws of physics and the important role of electromagnetism in the general make up of the universe, at large. We, living beings are bio-machine's in terms of function, but all that biology is sustained by electromagnetic forces running across our bodies and allawowing us to live. The same principle must run at the universal scale.

[@scottymoondogjakubin4766]

If there was a big bang and all mattter was jetisoned outward wouldnt there be a big void ?

[@realityisenough]

It's hard to comprehend, but the big bang didn't explode from one point in space outwards... it was everything condensed into a singularity, which then expanded from everything else. There is no single origin point; every point in space is also the origin point.

[@giannismargaris9553]

@@realityisenough a bunch of bs basically

[@onehitpick9758]

Keck was observing things that violated the cosmological principal more than thirty years ago. It's going to take more than rings and arcs to dispel this myth.

[@FrancisFurtak]

WOW!

[@Mobius3c273]

Thank you Mr Lerner for another great video. I have always thought that there is a pontential energy density within spacetime itself that over large enough distances and scales curves spacetime. My hypothesis is that instead of an accellarating universe, galaxies are red shifted by spacetime curvature. As I say, not by some mass but an inherant property of spacetime itself. Your plasma universe fits well within my model. My hypothesis is that although we look see Einsteins spacetime as a 3D space + 1D time, 4D space time. I see the Time component has a association with length and scale. Time/ scale being both temporal and spatial. In my model the further we look in space and further back in time and to larger scales I think GM relativistic effects slowly turn and fold the Universe back in to very small. If we think 3D as 2D we can visualise Time and scale being curved back on itself. Two ants initally standing together on 'opposite sides' of one side mobius strip see the other as mirror image of itself, facing the wrong way. Entropy and Time for each is in the same direction but opposite to the mirror image. I really think electromagnetism gets a raw deal in cosmology. I think curvature of spacetime stops it having neutral potential. Even here on Earth I think spactime curvature causes relavistic effects within a specific layer in the atmosphere. The layer would normally be neutrally charged but relativistic effects give an increase in charge carriers. When there is enough moist air to break the dialectric potential... zap. Think of the effect of that force across the curvature of a whole galaxy?.. is that the dark matter? I have always believed that spiral galaxies look like they are being stirred by a electomagnetic and electrostatic forces. Like one sees stiring a cup of coffee. I look forward to seeing many more of your videos. 😊

[@yoashuain1]

The Ring and the Ark seem to point to an origin, don't you think?

[@LPPFusion]

These structures clearly had an origin--everything in the universe has an origin. But the universe, which is everything, does not have an origin.

[@warrengregory883]

I am fairly confident that the universe is inside of a collapsing black hole that's inside another universe. As the matter collapses into the black hole, the forces rip the matter apart into energy/plasma. As it collapses, it forms rotating rings or filaments that would begin to interact as you have described. If it can indeed, collapse forever then there must be an expansion of volume and/or reduction in scale. We're also looking at time dilation effects. The further into the singularity the part of the universe you are observing, is in, the slower time will be flowing. The older parts further out, time would be flowing much faster. There could even be an snti-time wake, in which the arrow of time is actually slightly reversed from the arrow of time in the parent universe, outside of our universal black hole. I think the work done by Dr. Lee Smolin on Loop Quantum Gravity inside black holes can shed some light on this concept.

[@warrengregory883]

I have been thinking about the concept of anti-time waves, which Dr. Lee Smolin mentioned in his book: The Trouble with Physics. He said that anti-time waves are hypothetical solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, which describe quantum states of the universe that evolve backwards in time. He also said that anti-time waves could be interpreted as quantum tunneling from a big crunch to a big bang, creating a new universe with a reversed arrow of time. This made me wonder if anti-time waves could also be related to quantum strings, which are the fundamental objects of string theory. Quantum strings are one-dimensional entities that vibrate in a multi-dimensional space. They can interact with each other by splitting and joining, forming loops or open ends. Quantum strings are also subject to quantum fluctuations, which cause them to change their shape and size randomly. Now, imagine a scenario where a large number of quantum strings are densely packed together in a small region of space, forming a quantum string "soup". This could happen, for example, near the center of a black hole, where the gravitational force is so strong that it overcomes the quantum uncertainty principle and squeezes matter into a singularity. In this situation, the quantum strings would be constantly interacting with each other, creating a chaotic and dynamic system. Is it possible for an anti-time wave to form as this collapsing quantum string "soup" reaches or even surpasses the speed of light? A faster than light collapse of a quantum string soup resulting a reversal of time. Would this wave propagate "nearly instantaneously?" If yes, would this time dilation bubble of quantum strings be reversed fractions of a percentage of zero time? This could result in what would appear - to an inside observer - as a nearly instantaneous expansion of this now fully isolated region of space time. This would appear as an event we imagine as the big bang and creation of the universe. Is it possible the entire history of the universe has taken place in what would appear to an outside observer as a millionth of a second? Could we confirm the dilation rate through any observation and experimentation? In this anti-time bubble the collapsing soup of quantum strings would appear to reverse the direction of time. This would create a new arrow of time that is opposite to the original one. Could this be the origin of the thermodynamic arrow of time? The tendency of entropy to increase in isolated systems? Could we conduct some kind of experiment to determine how many parent universes exist over our realm? Would it be possible to have an origin universe, without it too being inside a collapsing quantum string anti-time bubble? Would it theoretically be possible to exit our anti-time bubble and singularity without instantaneously being "dissolved" instantaneously into the quantum foam background energy of a higher dimensional space; on a scale of orders of magnitude larger than our own? Theoretically overlooking this, using our mind's eye to pierce through our anti-time bubble to exit our universe and enter our parent universe, would our subatomic particles still be stable? My intuition is that they would not be, as due to variances in the laws of physics related to changes in scale and background quantum foam energy levels. If you have read this far, I thank you for your time. I truly hope you were able to use your mind's eye to travel with me on this journey into (and out of) a quantum singularity. Yours Truly, Warren W. Gregory

[@Fridaey13txhOktober]

The Cosmos was full artificialized by intelligent life a long time ago or in the process thereof. The observable cosmos is either a simulation or a replica of the old one where is Earth one of the first places where intelligent life emerged.

[@Fridaey13txhOktober]

Here is an idea, the Cosmos was full artificialized by intelligent life a long time ago (or in the process thereof). The observable cosmos is either a simulation or a replica of the old, pre-artificialization one. One where is Earth one of the first places where intelligent life emerged.

[@charlesmaurer6214]

Starting to look like the big bang was but one of many and this ring is an example of another one. Looks like 2 waves from two nearby blast. And by nearby I refer to general area in the sky. Would like to see some motion marks as the smaller could disrupt the arc? Also current studies shows time lines are much longer if it even works. Also the fact matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only exchanged makes the big bang itself difficult to make work. The mass would include all current black wholes and energy can't escape that point it has to fail our understanding of gravity to explode. Science is only able to go so far and the big bang is a guess that even violates basic scientific laws.

[@exponentialnegative1]

Tired Light is a way easier theory to explain than finding a solution that forces our actual observations to fit the theory of hubble expansion. Hubble expansion is not proven. Things that red shift "says" are super far away, are actually way closer (or they're literally too big to be true)

[@kerriolivier4155]

So is the big ring another universe?

[@m1illion1]

Isn’t it a ring just when looking from earth?

[@LPPFusion]

From other viewpoints it will be more elliptical, but still a ring--it is slightly elliptical from here. More surveys a needed to see if there are other rings on the same filament.

[@jnhrtmn]

I cannot get past the fact that redshift may be misunderstood. If that's true, it's more disastrous than a big bang. This entire field of science is assumption stacked upon assumption. A million scientists on a bandwagon can be wrong. You think angular momentum caused the gyroscopic effect, and this is BASIC mechanics that everyone just believes. Watch my explanation of it that "peer review" refuses to acknowledge, so it's been my 20 year secret of causality. It cannot get simpler than acceleration which is ABSOLUTE (not relative)! The point here is that math DOES NOT dictate reality. It can be analogous AND wrong.

[@user-pm4gh2ht4]

Subject: Question Regarding Time Delay in Supernova H0pe Without Big Bang Theory Dear Eric, I am a strong supporter of the idea that there was no Big Bang, and I agree with the position that the cosmic microwave background radiation is not conclusive evidence for any cosmological theory. I believe it to be more of an artifact rather than definitive proof of the Big Bang or any other model. That said, I would like to hear your explanation about the observed time delay in supernova H0pe in relation to the surrounding galaxy’s redshift. How would you account for this time delay phenomenon in distant supernova, without invoking the Big Bang theory or the standard cosmological model? I am very interested in your perspective on this. Best regards, 🐧🐧

[@KaiseruSoze]

The concepts of "static" and "dynamic" are poorly considered in BBT, GR or QM. An understanding of "reference static" or "reference dynamic" are essential in unraveling the laws of physics.

[@Yuri_Panbolsky]

10:10 Professor Francis Yu - kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKe2nmZtepeGe7c

[@batfly]

So what is to stop the Big Bang Fairy Tail from just adding a couple 100 billion years on to the age of the Big Bang? It's not like this sort of thing has not been done before.

[@exponentialnegative1]

18:30 can you believe that some people actually interpret that story as a justification for the drunk man? The idea is that you should always diligently look for answers in places where answers are generally found more easily, even if you know the answers you want are in a place that cant be observed. How does that make sense? Life doesnt reward hard workers, it rewards those who work smart! Better to fumble in the darkness of space looking for stars than to dig your head in the sand.

[@LPPFusion]

really? Do you have a link to someone who thinks the drunk is right?

[@exponentialnegative1]

@LPPFusion I even saw it a movie, so I'll look for the clip. I was totally surprised, haha

[@tonyb8660]

I'm in the top 100 💯 😎

[@upsguppy520]

why wont you say electric universe

[@nelson587]

You sir have nailed it .... Thank you ...

[@ovidiulupu5575]

An old light, from far distance May change în frecvency, not conect with Doppler efect. Must reanalizate light propagation and Time flow for light. What we see îs The past but how?

[@reclavea]

@25:49 And that the universe has trillions of years for these to develop? 🤔

[@galenhaugh3158]

They aren't principles if they're wrong!

[@martinc6987]

back to start,with all the technology used to prove it more,what they find is contrary.

[@jdp2571]

Vortex is supported by other knowledge in nature and ancient texts

[@sergiotorres1069]

Alright Rick ,use dark energy to stabilize a wormhole .

[@pablorivera376]

If something was eternally motionless, it cannot suddenly begin to move. In other words there is no motionless engine behind motion, motion always existed and will always exist, it is eternal in the past and in the future. The space where matter moves always existed as well. The rest is ideology.

[@frun]

Big bangers never listen 🙈🙉🙊

[@JungleJargon]

A deeper understanding of gravity gives you a deeper understanding of the universe. The earth is flat locally the same as the speed of light is the same locally but not on a larger scale. The earth is round on larger scales and the speed of light depends on the measures of time and distance which change depending on the amount of gravity in the surrounding area. This means that distant starlight arrives instantaneously from distant galaxies which aren’t as far away as they appear to us to be with our measures of time and distance and the time is also passing by at a much faster rate since there’s no matter between us and distant galaxies to slow down time or shorten distance according to general relativity which is now an observation and not just a theory. …and the converse of things approaching a black hole look stopped to us because of how slow they are moving. The changes in time and distance compound the changes in the speed of light as observed from our frame of reference. Do a thought experiment. Hold your hands a foot apart representing 186,000 miles saying “one thousand and one” representing one second while pretending to see an imaginary photon going from one hand to the other. Now expand the distance saying “one thousand and one” as fast as you can. You should notice that the speed of the imaginary photon increases the more distance expands and the more time speeds up just same as the farther away from the center of the galaxy it is. The opposite is also true. Someone moving in the direction of a black hole will seem to us to be stopped. *If you change the size of a cubit you will change the size of the house that you build with it.* 🏡🏠

[@coastrider9673]

Big bang just a guess. Dark matter less than a guess. Most of the time, guesses are wrong.

[@scottmcdonald5237]

😮

[@WilhelmvonFahrvergnugen]

no dxdt, no ddxdt and therefore no need to posit a DE.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Nebula sitting idley by without collapse for 12 or 13 billion years randomly throughout is extremely difficult no matter what assumptions made. The detection of element in stars that shouldn't be there based on the only process we know of lends to perodic table lack of understanding. I can't imagine more time as we know it based on green peas and the peekaboo boo metals mixed in and spread out. By default, Newtons original orientation and direction through the lens of Einstein is in order. Correlating background radiation with space itself is problematic, to say the least. The form & shape horizon paradox is not just showing up in space, it shows up across all fields and disciplines in the same way you expect 3 degrees of separation/ motion to be measured . Physics & all other feilds being held hostage by our notions & assumptions of Correlating time is so problematic and now so dangerous for health & wellness of humanity that we can't ignore the death & despair in its wake this century. It's very important that this proper orientation and direction is better understood. Only after covid did we get updated human dna family tree that accepts faster family mutation rate in African linages that better aligns it with other haplos. This is how far and wide spread this reaches into. Literally everything we know and do is connected to this deep time big bang. Obviously earth's regurgitating itself ,time dialation from mass displacement of space by product of gravity manifolds makes tracing or correlating time is ...

[@realityisenough]

Meds, take them

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

@@realityisenough < bots are on the meds today in all chat threads and all channels

[@theeddorian]

I think that perhaps the problem with respect to the Cosmological Principle is that no BB universe can actually be homogenous. If you consider things from from outside in, that is imagine looking on to anything "local" from infinity, then the variations across any _local_ scale are indistiguishable from zero. That is despite mathematical language we occasionally encounter, we cannot "approach" infinity. There is no "nearly infinite." Yet our mathematical concepts all start locally and extends outward. When you look at Mach's Principle, it becomes clear that looking on from an infinite perspective, as hard as that is to wrap one's head around, an infinite, infinitely old (if that actually makes sense) universe must be homogenous. Inertia is the effect of an infinite equipotential. We can measure small deviations locally, and the nearer we are to a mass, the more clear these become. But they are effectively still indistguishable from zero as far as an infinite universe is concerned. Any local "rest frame" experiences no acceleration because the universe as an infinite "condition" resists any change. Locally masses could coalesce but from an infinite universe's persepective, nothing happens. What's needed is a mechanism that can handle gradients (Second Law, Gravity, etc.) within an infinite state.

[@Vile_Entity_3545]

What is the point in thinking what it could be or couldn’t? We will never know for sure. The simple thing is is you can’t make something from nothing. They might as well put more energy into exploring rather than trying to get answers to an impossible question. Is there a start and finish, an inside and outside, infinite universe, finite universe, simulation etc. Nobody will ever know so it is not worth thinking about. The big minds in this should be using them minds for the betterment of man rather than trying to answer the impossible.

[@theeddorian]

@@Vile_Entity_3545Not trained in either philosophy or physics, eh? What we commonly ignore is that our little corner of things might not be "typical." When you hear someone talk about the Cosmological Principle assuming a homogenity across infinity, and then jump to the weirdly unjustifiable conclusion that what we can see is typical of infinity, there is a serious fault in the thought process. Suppose you subtract our local observable universe, all 13-odd billion light years of it, from the rest of the _infinite_ universe. What sort of difference does that make to the rest of the _infinite_ universe? Well, on that infinite scale, none at all. The variation within our local patch is of zero significance. That creates some remarkable potentials. For one thing, inertia is more significant than gravity, AND it may explain why gravity is "weak." Also, suppose that black holes and white holes are real. If you can, imagine an immense equilibrium where the local processes we see head toward entropic chill, then at some point, "new" matter, material that has been pulled into black holes elsewhere, emerges from white holes. In fact, the observations that Halton Arp made are potentially explained. But our physical science is still rooted in local effects and expectation bias.

[@Vile_Entity_3545]

@@theeddorian You are missing the point. You are trying to make heads or tails of it. There is no point at all because you will never know for sure.

[@theeddorian]

@@Vile_Entity_3545I do get the point, but what you are missing is my point. Science in general attempts to generalize from local conditions to the universe as a whole. Science actually attempts to use only one side of the coin, to employ your metaphor, to understand the whole coin. Cosmology has already chucked out most such generalizations as too simple to cover observations. Consequently, we are now hearing of dark matter, and dark energy to account for the difference between models that work here, and how they break in faraway in the remote past. You need to come up with a model that is objectively better, not complain about how people don't understand.

[@jimmarsen]

I agree we can never know how big or old the universe really is - or how it came to exist. But for the present, we can at least try to determine that it didn't originate 13.8 years ago (from some mysterious "singularity") and is at least trillions of years old and possibly at least trillions of light years in expanse. What about red dwarf stars? There are estimated to have potential lifetimes of trillions of years. Could some of them be much older than the Big Bang?

[@MyCatJeff]

Shout out Sabine! I do like her, but she posts correction/I changed my mind videos too often.

[@othercrowdinvestigators130]

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. They say we have galatic filaments, which are bigger than these (although I can't find any proof of their existence from the data) and those filaments are (supposedly) arranged in a network, each cell of which should be as big or bigger than this ring. Also the anomalous cosmological redshifts of quasars is problematic. Halton Arp's work proves that they are much closer than they appear, so the idea that there could be these faint galaxies in between that we cannot see by any other method is likely impossible. The absorption lines must indicate something (usually a gaseous element), but how you extract a ring or a line from that must be part of some other process. I suspect the logic of this process is causing an artefact in the data and that the ring doesn't exist.

[@jamescurrie6910]

This makes a lot of sense but question: this is Turok lecture on Big Bang without inflation: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qKSskHuPqbVpn7c Does any of it fit into your scenario?

[@richardhernandez6937]

The vortexes forms you mention does also form naturally in flowing streams. Could it be the reason why we see galaxies spinning faster than predicted because the universe is actually spinning and galaxies are picking up angular momentum? The theory is the geocentric view. Earth is stationary at the center of a rotating universe. This also explains why earth daily rotation is so stable, changing only a fraction of a second every century. This is flywheel effect of a rotating universe. The planets are still going around the Sun but the solar system is going around a stationary earth. Please watch this interview with Dr. Wolfgang Smith who is a geocentric. kzbin.info/www/bejne/bWLMY2Wtaqxsgacsi=-njM3XXOIpB-DEtD

[@jimtrowbridge3845]

You are getting pretty complex using division in your calculations. Is it possible that the creation of space REQUIRES the simultaneous creation of matter? Say, one hydrogen atom for each cubic meter of space. Don't know how this could be tested.

[@LPPFusion]

OK, we'll try for subtraction next time;). Matter creation was Hoyle's idea. But expansion in any form is contradicted by the surface brightness data.

[@gristlevonraben]

This is why i respect you and Sabine Hossenfelder, whose image you placed in your presentation, you two respect real scientific principles, neither of you bow down to peer pressure or political conformity. But Dear Sir, scientists of this era will never understand the universe until they realize that magnetism is gravity and that flux line field flows are a by product of gravity's formation in the neutron. As gravity increases with harmonic amplification with increase of neutrons, the gravity field becomes stronger and flatter. gravity is a subspace pull on the roots of above space matter. gravity is a subatomic attractive wave sent out by the internal structure of electrons and protons that become enhanced in power when combined into a neutron. stars are neutronic matter, planetary cores are neutronic matter, black holes are neutronic matter. neutrons and electrons and protons are holes into subspace, with miniscule event horizons. we are wallking beings composed of trillions of tiny blackholes. this is where the dark matter is hiding, in a smaller subspace dimension. the distance between you and the sun in this dimention is less than an inch.

[@beethovensg]

Structure at every scale indicates harmonics and resonance. Sound and light eminate from magnetic flux induced by charge in motion. Fractal geometry, holographic in nature.

[@2Hesiod]

The universe is obviously vastly older than 14 billion years. That only gives our Sun time for no more than 56 orbits around the galaxy. Is God playing twirly with the galaxy?

[@kellyburns4725]

Inflation

[@michaelstreeter3125]

Prof Steven Wolfram has a hypothesis saying if the early Universe had a lot (infinite?) of extra dimensions, which have collapsed down to the 3 we have today then you don't even need the inflationary period, and can explain homogeneity and large structures. Perhaps if space in the early Universe was much more connected than it is today, things like the Big Ring could form without a problem? Edit: this could be compatible with Dr. Lerner's theory.

[@Dan-gs3kg]

How do you delete extra spatial dimension?

[@redwolf7227]

I continue to believe that the e creator put things in the universe to continually confound and confuse any and every model of creation we can or could ever come up with…just to mess with us and continue to show us day by day that without him our intellect and hubris are nothing short of laughable in comparison to his. ✌️

[@chriswolfe403]

cognitive dissonance intensifies

[@shockwave326]

is it a ring ? she used red shift right? Halton Arp says hold my beer ! intrinzic red shift might tell us a different story relying on their calculations is a mistake you should delete this video

[@nowhereman9463]

How about the BIG LIE? Nobody knows, till you go. Patience people.

[@galenhaugh3158]

But I'm a farmer and I WANT more carbon in the atmosphere (which, by the way, doesn't produce "climate change"!)

[@LPPFusion]

But you are also an animal that breathes out CO2. A room feels stuffy at 1000ppm and performance on standard tests declines at that level. Other animals may well be more sensitive to CO2 than we are. For 25 million years levels have been 600ppm or below. Going above that is a massive uncontrolled experiment on all animal life. Aside from the fact that burning fossil fuels produce many other pollutants that kill 7 million people a year.

[@doktorhunggari4415]

If creationism is a myth, explain DNA! If this planet is Billions of years old, how large was the sun before it burned all of its early mass of gasses? Think about it! The earth would have been too close to suppprt life. God haters, all of you. You should be ashamed!The fact is "every knee will bow and confess Jesus Christ is Lord". And for the Hod haters there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth FOREVER.............