The current crisis in Cosmology - it just got a lot worse | Night Sky News November 2019

[@DrBecky]

Crisis in Cosmology stars at 14:22 - for all of my monthly Night Sky News videos everything is always timestamped in the description along with the relevant scientific journal article 👍🤗

[@andersforsgren3806]

Hello there Becky. :) Oh the age of the universe have been debated for soooo long. I had a heated debate with a guy at JPL in 1986, yes more than 30 years ago.... he just would not yield either. Eventually I ended the argument by saying 'You simply cannot have stars that are older than the age you claim'. Whereas were quite good at calculating the age of stars, other methods will have a wider range for errors. The funny thing in your video is that the age derived from Supernovas still is the same impossible age he used in our debate in 1986! Anyway, one always have to be ready to throw out a hypothesis when it no longer fit the data, I thrown so many out the window I cannot say if it's day or night outside. ;)

[@ronusa1976]

PLASMA COSMOLOGY [Full Infomentary] kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2XTiI19d9WKhpI I wish you would watch this. Way to many things are wrong. And you are right we have a crisis in cosmology!

[@hjembrentkent6181]

The universe is closed and bounded yes.

[@davidschmale3359]

Halton Arp. Why do you dismiss him? You’re building a skyscraper, but you’re in a hole digging straight down, you finally realize the plans you’re following are upside down... when do you stop digging?

[@andersforsgren3806]

@@ronusa1976 Then you're barking up the wrong tree - Dark energy certainly is debatable. Then the comments about 'wasting billions' on that research. First off, that work is done in parallel with other kinds of work. And a lot of new findings constantly pop up when doing blue sky research. Lastly, you've found several researchers that poke at the idea, but that's how science works, if I publish a paper I WANT to see a lot of people trying to poke a hole in my hypothesis. That reaction tells me I got something good and that they care. In short, you will always find a dissenting view on just about anything, but you're not supposed to view that as a literal truth! =)

[@MrToastercide]

Why not just call the extra 5 billion years 'dark time' and be done with it :P

[@SmartStr33t]

God-tier comment.

[@Claire6y]

That deserves a grant for sure 😂😂😂😂😂😂.

[@not2tired]

Dark energy, dark matter, dark time. So when distances and volumes don't work out, it must be dark space.

[@techmage89]

Ah yes, the good old physicists' shrug.

[@1956Caddy]

Very good ! Or let just rename the whole thing : "dark science " !

[@manpetepetrop8034]

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

[@tierras7230]

YES

[@AgiHammerthief]

I‘d ad a „like“ if it wasn’t on 42

[@siriusleigh24]

Ahh Dougies Diner! My favourite OOB eatery.

[@bugjams]

Didn't know the Universe had Bite Za Dusto as a stand ability.

[@jackforrest6382]

I have a theory that states:ur mum gay lol Quote that, you'll honestly sound less stupid

[@jackee-is-silent2938]

I believe the graphic at 21:25 has the images for "Precise but not accurate" and "Accurate but not precise" labelled the wrong way round.

[@MichiganSpinnaker]

Thank you. I knew that I couldn't be the first one to spot this

[@Zestyclose-Big3127]

Arrrgh there I was confused for a minute there

[@munnkittwong7043]

Same here. I was confused for awhile there.

[@blancaroca8786]

Goes to show what how unintuitive naming conventions can rebound. When I was studying a long while ago we would have said good grouping or systematic error v random. In darts accurate and precise are synonymous.

[@atmostud39]

I was just about to make a comment about this when I saw this thread. I'm surprised Dr. Becky hasn't chimed in.

[@RudeAlert]

For anyone else who just wanted to know what this whole crisis is, you can skip to 14:30.

[@LC-yo3bj]

Get this fucking cat to the top of the news stack Mac. Start the presses immediately, I want this on every major intersection within 5 hours and not a god damn second later god dammit. Great work kitty, you're gonna be sniffin cat nip and eating Fancy feast until you're fucking dead. Slay bodies.

[@thattwodimensionalant4626]

L C Are you alright?

[@maxcovfefe]

thanks!

[@SuzanneZacharia]

🙏🏽

[@zachdancy5828]

Thank you! I didnt want to be tortured thru, just to see if it was Clickbait or not.

[@markphillips1048]

Science: We're finally starting to understand the universe! The Universe: You must be new here.

[@nhinged]

E Core interesting where is this from?

[@Alex-xg2od]

@@E.T.S.TL:DR

[@terryboyer1342]

@@E.T.S. Can you be more specific please?

[@saskwatch2007]

Holmes, I want to be your brain!

[@t0mmyd0nkyt45]

Stupid troll bot

[@andrewmiller2868]

The crisis in cosmology really boils down to the fact that is is a house of cards built on a foundation of guesses.

[@slaanmydoodmetnvis]

Guesses or just outright systemic fraud, knowing how the priest-class obtain funding, tenure and getting published, I would bet on the latter.

[@andrewmiller2868]

@@slaanmydoodmetnvis I couldn't agree more. You spelt out exactly what was in my mind when I posted my comment. Thanks man

[@RedRocket4000]

False it's ideas based on tons of actual data. There is a lot of stuff that is proved and a ton of stuff that is not possible given the data. In Cosmalagy and physics they are stretching farther than in other fields but that does not negate the certainties they do have.

[@YourTVUnplugged]

@@RedRocket4000 No it's not... It's based upon layers and layers of assumptions which obfuscate the layers of assumptions underneath those layers of assumptions. Assumptions that are treated as facts, pretending you have certainties does not make you certain about something but it certainly makes you foolish. Yes you can have tons of data, but if you don't know what that data means or how to interpret it! Using background radiation to measure time, is like trying to use a ruler to measure weight. That's why it doesn't work, because the assumption you made about the source or where this background radiation originates from is incorrect.. But instead of acknowledging that hey maybe our assumption we made that we're basing this off of is not correct, they instead try to bend their variables to conform to their theory based on assumptions. As new data becomes available it should allow you to rethink your entire understanding always taking the entire picture into account, rather than what is done, trying to force everything to adhere to the current going 'theory'. How can the 'big bang theory' be taken seriously when the major contradiction within it's theory is not taken seriously? That is that in order for there to be a big bang, there has to be something there already existing to create that bang. No explosion happens unless there is an explosive substance which is then ignited and something to create a pressure differential which allows for a rapid expansion. Promoters of this theory skip over that major flaw in their theory not taking it seriously, but yet expect us to take their theory seriously when they don't even take it's problems seriously. Then with the assumption that their flawed theory is accurate (it's not) they try to base further assumptions on top of that. How about we throw out all of these assumptions and start with what we actually know (you know without all these assumptions getting in the way), because the assumptions in science are not helping they are pidgeon holing us stuck and trapped into a narrow minded way of thinking which is blinding us and making us incapable of seeing the true answers. That's because we're not looking for the true answers, we're just trying to keep the equations balanced, the current theorie(s) from falling apart, and the grant money flowing...

[@caboosecc]

@@slaanmydoodmetnvis Careful there, you are starting to sound like those flat earth idiots.

[@wtywatoad]

The Universe looks younger than it is because it had cosmological surgery.

[@jeremyrainman]

Cheap plasma can't stop the heat death. It's redshift will always be obvious to trained observers.

[@Steven-ze2zk]

Jeffro lol

[@nenesimone]

Damn you, take my like!!

[@jamesmoore5630]

You may think That I stole your joke, However, I did not read the comments before I saw the video. I took Astronomy class and the first thing that came up was how many people think you will learn about your horoscopes in this class raise your hand. 15 people raised their hands. He said go back to your counselor and change classes. That left 12 students!!! So I said maybe they took cosmetology instead of cosmology. So the joke I told was 30 years old!!! And it's T R U E!!! Brother James OSB

[@lant7123]

Black holes: nature's liposuction.

[@shang6158]

A cosmologist told me the universe was shaped like the pringle. I thought that sounded hyperbolic.

[@dsnodgrass4843]

I don't see what you did there; but i can 'infer' it.

[@alexcerullo3143]

D Snodgrass why did u comment the same thing twoce

[@muninrob]

@@alexcerullo3143 youtube likes to double post if you get packet loss

[@germansnowman]

Alex Cerullo He didn’t. Don’t vs. can’t. Should have edited his comment though instead of posting a second one.

[@dsnodgrass4843]

@@alexcerullo3143 First one didn't appear to post at all. sorry.

[@w3bst3r123]

If you are daring, try the Electric Universe Theory. It's much more elegant and no need for all the things we can't see (dark matter etc.)

[@JanTaljaard]

I would have thought that needing the concepts of ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ to keep the universe together already indicated a crises in cosmology or at least in our understanding?

[@moshanr1951]

Amen

[@Mosern1977]

Dark Matter and Energy does sound better than Angel Dust and Angel Positivity - but it has about the same scientific merit.

[@jamesmoore5630]

I will go with the "understanding", as we just can't seem to get close to an accord on all the properties of a black hole. But I always believed that if we had a big bang, then after the space that was blown away, would slow down, stop and return to make a new black hole which after the hole got overloaded would explode again. Now that we are pretty sure that the stars are not slowing down, but, rather speeding up, and will be gone from the visual sky and leave it black, Then that blows up my theory, and thickens the plot. Brother James

[@rfrakctured]

@@jamesmoore5630 Search for Space News from the Thunderbolts Project if you want to hear about the real crises of cosmology. Black Holes and Big Bang are in big trouble as astronomers and physicists collect more and more data.

[@Argrouk]

Like when they invented "potential" energy just so that they could make their sums work out? Maths is the problem, science would be fine if they didn't demand that everything have an equation, that's just dumb.

[@ronaldderooij1774]

I never saw someone report a crisis so cheerfully.

[@brett22bt]

Something I love about most cosmologists is the positive energy and enthusiasm they exude when they explain things.

[@Kettenhund31]

@@brett22bt But their enthusiasm and optimism is even greater when they can't explain something because this means that there is more research needed.

[@brett22bt]

@@Kettenhund31 Yes and I love that too lol.

[@lyrimetacurl0]

A universe-wide crisis too!

[@nihlify]

Breaking the status quo is the dream of many scientists.

[@dutchtekradio]

to make it short we understand the universe like goldfish understand the room their bowl is placed

[@bentopalchemistfranklin7797]

Scientist: "Technology should narrow our results and give us a better understanding" Universe: "Have we met??""

[@jasonmccarthy9764]

Ben 'Top Alchemist' Franklin thank you for this comment! 😂😂

[@vladimirseven777]

- But we invented fundamental laws of your physics. - Sorry habitats of planet 3 in the star cluster of small galaxy in filament of space - picture of your position in space has too low quality.

[@sciencetroll6304]

Aphid scientists " We have mapped the entire branch, we now have an accurate picture of everything. " The forrest " Hmmm. "

[@arrgghh1555]

The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

[@randyralls9658]

@@arrgghh1555 I don't think they know.

[@UltimateBargains]

"It may look like a crisis, but it's only the end of an illusion." -- Gerald Weinberg

[@prophesytheorist5130]

@Khalid Ibn Alwaleed this will not be received well I am sure, but here is what I gather. At one point, we had a different star, maybe saturn or Jupiter. I believe our star plays a huge role in our level of perception. And coming into saturn once again may actually change how our minds and body's function. Many believe that's where telepathy came from in ancient lore.

[@BobSmith-rs7tn]

@@prophesytheorist5130 stars don't break down into planets... Planets can turn into stars though.

[@prophesytheorist5130]

@@BobSmith-rs7tn I never said they did. More so that we move through space and our star (sun) is periodically replaced

[@mmercier0921]

The telescope allowed us to think. The computer allowed us to see. This is not an oxymoron... it is the reality.

[@imgayasheck595]

@Khalid Ibn Alwaleed that we had false consciousness (the illusion) and the end of the illusion is seen as a crisis by those in the illusion.

[@BrMiller]

21:27 On the precision accuracy diagram, precision and accuracy were flipped

[@thimkful]

But only the two on the right.

[@uptown3636]

Having recently started studying Astronomy at university, I just wrote an assignment on this new crisis in Cosmology. The chapter that we were studying at the time the crisis arose was about measuring redshift as a function of distance, and using that data to determine Hubble's constant. What perfect timing! Can't wait to see how they resolve the data. A great new mystery.

[@mattvjmeasures]

When I first started my Astronomy degree the Hubble was yet to be launched (although it was up and running by the time I'd graduated, albeit still needing lense correction), and exoplanets were still 99% theoretical (there'd been hints but no confirmed observations). Such a dynamic ology :-) (my family call me an astrologer)

[@harfharfful]

"There's a crisis in cosmology!" **scientists in the background popping champagne**

[@timbeaton5045]

New Physics!!! YAAAAAY🍸🍷🍾🥂💥

[@faikerdogan2802]

oh boy that got me good :D kajsdlfasj

[@acousticpsychosis]

It just means they have the opportunity to learn something new...in the immortal words of Homer... CRISITUNITY!

[@lostindixie]

Continuing employment.

[@Reth_Hard]

But all this are the first signs of the apocalypse isn't it? Should I renew my life insurance or something? :P

[@MANUALinappropriate]

I’m loving how her credentials are just casually chillin on her desk.

[@titty2ballscinx1l54]

in big letters no less lol

[@johnnyafro6659]

First thng I noticed, hillarious ...however you spell that , lol. FMFP

[@vermontsmostobesetubaplaye1988]

@John Sinclair it sure sounds like insecurity. And ego.

[@gerardjones7881]

Oh this little thing It's just a degree thing what'sit.

[@snackentity5709]

doesn't seem very casual. looks pretty deliberate and loud the way it takes up almost 25% of the backdrop (the rest of which is blank walls). i hope that's a mistake, otherwise it comes across as absurdly absent of humility. most PhDs get over themselves pretty quick, especially as they realize their degree means nothing when everyone else they work with has the same academic credentials or higher.

[@Waltham1892]

I just told my children that we are canceling Christmas because of the crisis in cosmology. I'm going to save HUNDREDS!

[@markpinsker3121]

...and they now think that you misspelled covid as cosmology? Either way great prediction!

[@Waltham1892]

@@markpinsker3121 Covid took out Easter. I finally going to be able to eat 3 lbs of chocolate in peace.

[@mattkerle81]

Crisis is that two different methods for estimating the age of the universe have now got so accurate that their error bars no longer overlap, so something is broken.

[@rickkoenig3793]

Matthew Kerle and what if estimating the age of the universe is pointless, because it had no beginning and will have no end? It just changes over the course of endless Duration.

[@NWOslave]

@@rickkoenig3793 second law of thermodynamics disproves a forever universe. for the universe to end it must have had a beginning

[@rickkoenig3793]

NWOslave I agree with you. If the universe doesn’t have an end, it doesn’t require a beginning. And the “law” you speak of is a human hypothesis, not something we’ve actually observed over billions of years. Hypotheses are great, until a new one comes along!

[@NWOslave]

@@rickkoenig3793 hypothesis and laws are not the same. I dont believe you ate intellegent enough to continue this conversation. You clearly have no idea what you are saying.

[@rickkoenig3793]

NWOslave well my Ph.D. says otherwise, but feel free to drop out of the convo. I’ll remind you that it was you who felt the need to reply to me. I posit a truly infinite and immortal universe, and you disagree. That’s fine.

[@tonyv6351]

It's not a crisis; it's an opportunity looking for an explanation. We will never have all the answers.

[@KarlBunker]

How old is the universe? A gentleman never asks.

[@manjsher3094]

A lady never tells.

[@mrkiky]

Oh boy, it's good that they weight of the Universe doesn't come into question.

[@fearthemerciful]

@Pronto Scientist: "You're shaped like a sphere"

[@mrkiky]

@Pronto Real universes have CURVES!!

[@fearthemerciful]

@aDBo'Ch 1 "only relatively"

[@Rog5446]

It looks like the turtle upon which the universe is carried is doing a little dance.

[@jm-xh4yz]

I found your channel a couple months ago and absolutely love it. The only thing I would recommend for cosmology is to add and equatorial or polar line to add some definition to what we're looking at. In my mind it makes looking at the stars so much easier because it allows people without a firm spatial grasp a way to figure it out in their head.

[@Chlorate299]

21:41 accuracy and precision are inverted in that graphic.

[@joshuacoppersmith]

Right. These targets show up in high school texts, and they are terrible. They'd be better showing repeatability vs. accuracy, or what shooters would call grouping vs. being on bullseye. Accuracy is the fineness of the measurement relative to a given (hopefully naturally-inspired) unit; it's the number of decimal places. Precision is the fineness of the measurement relative to its size; it's the number of significant digits. 1.23 cm is more accurate than 12.3 cm but both have equal precision. 1.23 cm is more accurate than 123.4 cm, but the latter is more precise, as it has 4, not 3, significant digits. To know if a big number is prime I have to have precision, all the digits exact, or be accurate to the 1's digit; both say the same thing. Meanwhile, a small number requires the same accuracy to check for prime, but less precision. In machining, precision tends to have more of the meaning of accuracy, I think.

[@willemvandebeek]

I love the cross-hair and red dots animation though; they are great images, which can explain more than words do

[@paulperkins1615]

@JackSpeed 439 Or if we don't have repetition we can still say that precision is how close we think we got to the target and accuracy is how close we actually got. We can't actually see where the bullet hit, the mark is too small to see from where we are, in this metaphor.

[@christianosminroden7878]

I like to explain it via the kind of error that is related to the respective lack of them: A lack of precision leads to random errors (a shotgun may be accurate but lacks precision), a lack of accuracy leads to systematic errors (a poorly adjusted sniper rifle will precisely hit the same wrong spot with every shot). The mean thing is: While you can compensate for a lack of precision by statistical analysis of multiple measurements, if your setup has an unknown systematic error, the same approach will only raise confidence in a wrong finding.

[@NicholasA231]

Okay good, I was afraid that my entire life was a lie. Just the "precise but not accurate" and "accurate but not precise" though. The "accurate and precise" and "neither..." ones are correct, which is odd.

[@pandaman9690]

21:25 Correction. “Precision” refers to the closeness of measurements relative to one another. “Accuracy” refers to close these values are to the true value.

[@fins59]

I've got a spare 'how' if you'd like it.

[@nmarbletoe8210]

That's right. The precision of a meter stick is 1mm. The accuracy depends on how you use it. If I say that I am 107.1115306 feet tall, that's very precise, but not very accurate.

[@EMETRL]

yeah the graphic on the video seems to have accuracy and precision backwards

[@YourTVUnplugged]

@@nmarbletoe8210 Yea like what they did with their graphic... I find it quite funny how they were very precise about describing with their graphic precision and accuracy... But they weren't very accurate :P

[@jerelull2619]

Thanks, Dr Becky!. Clear, concise, but complete enough to satisfy an ancient, retired engineer who has too much time on his hands or I wouldn't be discovering gems like this.

[@alecisla]

Hi Becky! I'm watching all of your videos and I have to say, you're doing a very good job in "translating" what's happening in the world of science to the general public. I think more scientists, astrophysicists and cosmologists should do the same, as we out here are always "thirsty" for more and new information on what's going on up there. Thank you so much for your time and effort to make this videos and explain all of this things, you're an angel and a star!!! :)

[@DrBecky]

Thank you 🤗

[@Will_Wel]

@En ki great video. I was going to tell them to watch the latest space News videos from the Thunderbolts project KZbin channel. As all of these crises have just been confirmations of the electric Universe model!

[@chainsrad6354]

Legit scientists who actually know how to explain things to the layman are few. It would be a dream if they were all so socialised

[@TheQuantumTraveller]

I fell asleep before 14:22. Just another mouthpiece for mainstream science.

[@tommyleespartan5640]

Adrian Travelle. People like you are just soo stupid it isn't even funny anymore

[@TheQuantumTraveller]

@@tommyleespartan5640 I'm and educated person with an expanded awareness. Heck I've even got a science degree... What a shocker!! Try again...

[@regisatlas]

as opposed to what?

[@750kv8]

@@TheQuantumTraveller - What's an expanded awareness? Is it smoked?

[@TheQuantumTraveller]

@@750kv8 I'd smoke it for sure

[@chuuzu]

You and I have very differing ideas of what constitutes a "crisis".

[@ptonpc]

A crisis from one viewpoint, a fantastic opportunity to learn more about the universe from another viewpoint.

[@jimmyshrimbe9361]

Crisis is generally a good thing or at least something potentially new and exciting in this context. Anyone involved would most likely have that viewpoint.

[@ptonpc]

@Agent J If I understand you. You are asking in what way science differs from religion. One of the major ways is that science never claims to know all the answers. Science advances by asking questions and challenging long held ideas. Nowhere in Dr Becky's video or the papers she talked about, does anyone give excuses or blame anyone. Instead they say "Based on the data we have, this is the most likely situation" then others will look at the data and challenge it or do more observations and research to see if they can replicate the results.

[@ptonpc]

@Agent J Ahh. you're one of the crazies. I understand.

[@nadirjofas3140]

@Agent J Do you?

[@7eamGhast]

*Where I grew up, we were taught that the sky was a clock that never changes, we learned how to tell the time and our locations with just the stars.*

[@ericstyles3724]

Dude.. ya. & spherical trigonometry.

[@wishusknight3009]

The sky does change, but very very slowly. ..... . . . . . . Very slowly.

[@7eamGhast]

wishus knight My suggestion to you... to start looking up, you’re being deceived.

[@phillipfubar8869]

@@7eamGhast How are we being deceived, and by whom?

[@wishusknight3009]

@@7eamGhast Thousand of years slow. Sounds like education failed you.

[@khwezimngoma]

Maybe its time we listened to Hans Alfvein and other Plasma cosmologists, maybe its time we listened to them more and entertained their ideas more. We are constantly surprised, constantly saying no to them, yet their once outlandish pronouncements seem to be still holding steady. Take for instance comets... are they icy or not, none of the pictures we have show icy worlds, and even then, everyone is surprised, but no one is trying to re-evaluate their models.

[@prioris55555]

or alternatively better yet go to the Thunderbolts Project kzbin.info/door/vHqXK_Hz79tjqRosK4tWYA and learn that we live in an Electric Universe

[@19vangogh94]

I for one wholeheartedly welcome this new discovery! Finally something to make us rethink everything again :)

[@deanmccrorie3461]

Me: how could you be so obtuse?! Pringle universe: What did you call me?

[@rasputinsbeard3899]

I'm still awaiting the "Champagne Supernova", that was predicted in the late 90s.

[@Vaultboy-ke2jj]

It was only definitely maybe predicted

[@oldmandan4244]

Wow, you must be really patient!

[@rasputinsbeard3899]

It was phophecised that someday, Noel Gallagher would be found beneath a landslide, seemingly caused by the presence of a champagne supernova, in the sky. There was no indication as to whether he'd be alive or dead though, leaving this prophecy, as many are, shrouded in mystery and ambiguity. I guess that all I can suggest is don't look back in anger, and realise that we just have to roll with it.

[@rasputinsbeard3899]

@Reicher Reinhardt Von kesselring I'm pretty sure that Mr Rees knows exactly what the story is.

[@jtkent28]

I think we’re more from half a world away from ever seeing a Champaign supernova. Stop crying your heart out over it though. Even if we could go supersonic some might say we’d have to live forever before we see one. Whatever.

[@FreemanVashier]

Have you looked into the electric universe's explanation of black holes?

[@Mandrak789]

it's BS alright

[@FreemanVashier]

@@Mandrak789 which?

[@yupyup6599]

You guys a re stupid as fuckthis nonsense is bullocks the electric universe makes sense

[@dirremoire]

@Alchemist TEU makes more sense than string theory and dark matter combined. BTW, what's really BOLLOCKS is alchemy.

[@stevetreloar6602]

@@dirremoire The electric universe invokes a hypothesis to debunk theories? How does that work exactly?

[@charlesfoster575]

We are witnessing the true essence of modern science here I'm afraid...

[@wishusknight3009]

And its Wonderful!

[@elxero2189]

You mean more guesswork?

[@johnhead1643]

@@elxero2189 I'm guessing that you know very little about how science works

[@bobbyburgle4536]

@J. J. Flabenowitz Just how radio was useless when discovered. Maybe they were right, now we have idiots like you who have the ability to spread more disinformation.

[@bobbyburgle4536]

@J. J. Flabenowitz, you should follow your own advice, I'm not the one that needs it really.

[@coffinman5007]

I thought Airy's failure was a crisis in cosmology.

[@SGMediaChannel]

Indeed

[@bkkdaveable]

And one that these charlatans would rather not discuss.

[@coffinman5007]

@@bkkdaveable I know, it's like listening to crickets waiting for a globeling to answer.

[@ramsaymcewan3916]

the earths not spinning through space thats ridiculous

[@scarfhs1]

Then you were mistaken.

[@flyingkeyframes]

Really enjoyed this one - just one thing though, are precise and accurate not the other way round?

[@Biomirth]

I thought it was right, but my memory can be imprecise.

[@therugburnz]

No, they ARE the other way around? Yes, they ARE the other way around? Yes, No, Maybe, IDK, @lines Love you

[@germansnowman]

As others have already pointed out, you are correct. Accuracy is closeness to the actual value, precision is the spread of values.

[@extradimension7356]

Labels on the top right and bottom right graphics should be switched. ~ Maybe a deliberate mistake to make sure we are paying attention and to gauge the science and metrological literacy of her audience ? Or not ? Doesssss she play polo ? :-)

[@ffggddss]

I thought so, too. Accuracy = average close to the bullseye; precision = tight shot group. Fred

[@tacticalant3841]

How do you get matter from nothing in the big bang?

[@EnglishMike]

Nobody knows.... yet.

[@tacticalant3841]

Mike - right, real interesting theory, till you realize there MUST be a CREATOR.

[@EnglishMike]

@@tacticalant3841 No, there is no requirement for there to be a creator that we know of. Just because everything inside has a cause doesn't mean the universe itself (in a category of its own) must have a cause, let alone a creator. In any case, even if the universe was created, there' an infinite number of possibilities as to the identity of the creator. For example, perhaps our universe was created as part of an experiment by a hyperdimensional high school student studying for his finals. Either way, invoking a superintelligent omnipotent creator doesn't make the origins of the universe any easier to understand. In fact, it complicates matters a thousand fold.

[@tacticalant3841]

Mike - according to this science, big bang, every bit of matter, every atom in the entire universe was once compressed into a tiny pebble. The pebble exploded and somehow formed a universe with order and intelligence. Im asking where all the matter came from in the first place? And secondly, can you show me any example of an explosion resulting in order? And third, Happy Thanksgiving!

[@DrQuadrivium]

Tactical Ant... *Nobody knows* and probably never will know. .

[@DeutscheDemokratischeRepublik]

Everyone asks, what is the universe, but nobody asks, how is the universe?

[@justincase1919]

Ikr ? They're so objectifying ! 🤣

[@d1d1ka29]

How are you people?

[@megasbaladoros]

Thank you! Finally! I'm ok dude, how are you?

[@d1d1ka29]

@@megasbaladoros Good, busy colliding black holes with neutron stars for now

[@scarfhs1]

I am sure the universe is fine.

[@souljahroch2519]

...or option 3: Dark matter doesn't exist. It's an ElectroMagnetic, Dusty Plasma Universe.🦁✌

[@chrissholly1373]

correct they got red shift all efed up

[@jellekaufmann4076]

Finally someone with a sensical comment. There are no black holes, dark matter or dark energy. We live in a spherical donut-shaped universe driven by plasma in either it's dark mode, glow mode or arc mode. Everything physical is comprised of electromechanical energy and the evidence for this lies in the electromagnetic and electric fields surrounding it.

[@planexshifter]

Ok- then what are all the black holes we observe?

[@souljahroch2519]

Trevor Goodchild Black holes.

[@dirremoire]

@@planexshifter We haven't observed one. The so-called photo by the Event Horizon "telescope" was generated by running a model against a database of petabytes of radio-observational data. Basically, any data that didn't match what they wanted was discarded. Isn't it funny that the "picture" looks exactly like what they expected it to look like. No surprises at all....that doesn't usually happen in astronomy.

[@AYVABTU001]

How do astronomers determine weather the red shift of galaxies is caused by universal expansion or, more likely, the direction by which observed galaxies are traveling? Correlation / Causation. Also, if you look back at past occurrences where new information throws all mathematical conclusions into "crisis", it is usually found later that the entire methodology by which the original measurements were taken was completely and fundamentally flawed as I suspect this is the case. This isn't so much a crisis as it is an apocalypse.

[@Grimebucket]

I am not an astrophysicist, so there are likely some inaccuracies in my answer, but I will try to explain. I believe the reasoning for the red shift being attributed to expansion rather than galaxies travelling is due to: (1) There is a correlation between the distance a galaxy is from us and how fast it is moving away from us. With further galaxies moving away from us faster. This suggests that either everything is moving away from everything (expansion) or we are the centre of the universe and everything is moving away from us (galaxies travelling). (2) The furthest galaxies we detect are calculated to be moving away from us at speeds that exceed the speed of light. This is not possible for "travelling" in the conventional sense. But it can be explained using universal expansion.

[@CrusaderSports250]

@@Grimebucket if they were traveling faster than light speed how do we see them as the light would never reach us, as the source is traveling faster in the opposite direction,?, if you unwind a winch at one speed and pull the winch away faster then the end of the rope will always be moving away?.

[@peppermintgal4302]

@@CrusaderSports250 If I understand correctly, we see those galaxies as they were in the far past --- before they were moving that fast away from us. However, as time goes on, more and more galaxies become "invisible" specifically because of this. As a galaxy approaches the speed of light relative to us, the light its emitting will be, when it reaches us, closer and closer to being redshifted to infinite frequency. Once that galaxy reaches that speed, no light it emits from that point will ever arrive here. Judging by the pattern of how fast galaxies are moving depending on how old they are, we figure that the most distant, ancient galaxies we see must be moving past light speed --- otherwise, there must be an equidistant wall of crunched up, colliding galaxies, since none of the galaxies could move equal to or faster than light. That's statistically unlikely, since it would mean we just happen to be *near* the exact center of such a bubble. Though of course, I am assuming that none of the galaxies we observe as having been traveling away from us, and accelerating, haven't changed directions. Meanwhile, we *know* spacetime is stretchable and flexible, so it's more parsimonious that we are seeing the stretching of spacetime. Of course, it's an assumption that it is uniform across all space --- though that seems to be the case based on the rather *close* correlation between the distance of any observed galaxy and its redshift. Of course, this could merely be an indication that we have local conditions that are, despite being local, *very large scale* relative to us, that prevail. It could be there are similarly massive regions of spacetime that are shrinking just over the cosmic horizon. So... mostly the standard cosmological model is simply the one that makes the most parsimonious sense, but there are underlying assumptions inherit to it. Mainly and specifically that what we have observed "locally," within the cosmic horizon, prevail as conditions everywhere. But desptie this, that that very same local space is expanding is probably the strongest part of the cosmological model, in my opinion. (Though again, even within that space, galaxies we observe as having been accelerating away from us millions or billions of years ago might simply not be doing so anymore, for whatever reason.)

[@CrusaderSports250]

@@peppermintgal4302 thank you for your comment but if a galaxy can attain faster than light speed and so become invisible how does that square with the concept that you cannot exceed light speed? E=mc2, I have always been "corrected" whenever I have talked of faster than light, whilst its beyond us it would seem a galaxy finds it no problem, mass and entropy not withstanding, how does this work?.

[@billbaggins]

Finished the book last night, really enjoyed your conversational style of writing ☺️ Hope you do another one.

[@moontlc]

Woohoo the Wednesday night highlight. The best part of the week 😊

[@Llerrah508]

Love your videos Dr. Becky! Been binge watching, I'm fascinated with solving problems and this topic.👍

[@marcusanderson9042]

The universe maybe a square one since that's where its taking all the scientists back to.

[@joshyaks]

Just wait'll they start getting into all the other parallelogram universes.

[@Will_Wel]

Try looking into a model that actually makes sense. Like the electric Universe model. None of these things as of late have been crises but confirmations of that model.

[@SargeRho]

@@Will_Wel Except that the Electric Universe makes no sense either. These crises don't disprove the current general understanding of the universe, rather the opposite, they continue to improve and strengthen it.

[@yupyup6599]

@@SargeRho black holes and dark matter don't make sense the electric universe makes complete sense you can't get a sunburn from a campfire but you can get one from a welder the sun is electric

[@yupyup6599]

@@SargeRho these crisis show how flawed your theory is when the evidence don't match your theory its time to throw it out and start over not make up stuff so it does work

[@inquaanate2393]

I thought that accurate was close to reality and precision was tight grouping

[@hichamjohra4346]

indeed, the "target" analogy is nice to explain accuracy and precision, but it has been inverted in this video: accuracy = closeness (in average) to the truth precision = repeatability or spread or reproducibility en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision

[@inerlogic]

Accuracy is the closeness of the result to the target, precision is the closeness of the results to each other.

[@f.eugenedunnamiii9452]

Precision is the measure of deviation from the group. Accuracy is the measure of deviation from the desired location. Arguing over the distinction for semantic things which can't be quantified can be fun, but is mostly a waste of time.

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

Let's say I am going to give you the value of PI. 3 is more accurate than 4. 4.000005 is more precise than 3, but less accurate. 3.14159 and 3.14 are both equally accurate; 3.14159 is more precise. When you are trying to detect a change in light that is .000001 units (arbitrary figure), using an instrument that is only precise to 0.0001 will do you no good. It can be perfectly accurate, but not precise enough.

[@MijinLaw]

Yep. In addition to being inverted, I would suggest that an illustration of "accurate, but not precise" should be a bit more tightly grouped that the image that she used (the one labelled as "precise but not accurate"). Because her image looks like just a random scattering, barely better than the non-accurate image, when it should be visually obvious that they are clearly centered around the bullseye.

[@richardjellis9186]

This is the thing about publishing a number (14bill for the universe, and 4.? for our solar system), where even just ONE part of an equation is a 'guess'(as good as that guess may be for the time). You can, just a few telescopes later, be halving or doubling your original 'fact'. For some reason, we(as a species) think that we know it 'all', and that our guesses aren't disprovable at the time, so they ARE correct. But then, a few years later, a young 'upstart' comes in with a new idea, and scares the old guard silly, and opens up an idea(or 'fact') that puts the original number on its head. We need to stop thinking that we know EVERYTHING (I know it's not everyone), and just admit that we simply DON'T KNOW some things that we've DEFINITELY known for some time now. I guess that funding from various sources would be impacted if certain ideas were 'let in', and this is what's stopping certain things moving forward (or I may be wrong). This may sound silly to some people, but, I know what I mean, even if I don't know how to communicate it properly.!🧐🤔🤯!. LOVE THE VIDS KEEP'EM COMING RICH(UK) 🥰🥰🥰.

[@Saka_Mulia]

Less a crisis and more an opportunity - hearkening back to the days when Newton's theories were incomplete because of Mercury's wibbly wobbly orbit . Whichever team cracks this intellectual safe will earn the keys to Einsteinian fame. I'm so bloody excited! Can't Wait! Squeeeeee!

[@ArturdeSousaRocha]

I agree. I actually find this interesting. We may find out something important about our Universe that we didn't even expect.

[@esquilax5563]

In the words of Homer Simpson, it's a crisotunity

[@Saka_Mulia]

@@esquilax5563 Isn't that a Chinese word? ;)

[@esquilax5563]

@@Saka_Mulia you're a person of culture I see ;)

[@Jimmyinvictus]

I love the sentiment here: this is no crisis, it's an *opportunity!*

[@generalharness8266]

I am interested in how time dilation effects the age of the universe when you measure something with speed.

[@generalharness8266]

@planet42 fixed thank you. I failed English so yea.

[@epiccollision]

It’s all relative, literally.

[@proceedxwithxcaution]

You're the best. Reminds me of such passion. I was an astrophysics major before I switched to aerospace engineering and honestly, I'm probably just gonna do both; it's not like I have a life outside of space lmao. Thanks for keeping it real.

[@chrisray1567]

Discovering a problem with our scientific understanding is not a negative thing. It’s what happens when an unknown unknown becomes a known unknown. Ultimately that’s a good thing.

[@nigeldepledge3790]

Becky, I love your diagrams illustrating the difference between precision and accuracy, but you ought to know that you got the two terms flipped around. If a set of measurements is accurate, then it is a good reflection of reality. If a set of measurements is precise, then it is highly reproducible (with tighter error bars).

[@TjinDeDjen]

Just curious; what are the exact definitions of a "year" used for those kinds of calculations (age of the universe)?

[@hauntedplayland7839]

Deep!

[@sleepful1917]

well, we've defined rather exactly one second, so that value, times 60, times 60, times 24 (or 23.99 something or other), times 365.25 seems to be about a year! on average of course haha

[@dirremoire]

The problem with models is that they assume we know enough already to create a model. Plus, there is no peer review of source code.

[@wishusknight3009]

@Paulie G "I don't understand it so therefor its umpossible"

[@terryboyer1342]

@Paulie G Like the current "climate change crisis" nee "global warming" crap that's so popular now.

[@quatrixx]

When you talk about closedness of space, does that mean there would be a definite center of the universe? Or would parallel lines converge in the distance relative to an observer only?

[@AvantirMardrakYihn]

Just think about the picture of the lines of longitude on Earth's surface shown in the video. The lines are parallel at the equator, but they converge at the poles. If you're standing at the poles, the lines still converge there, because their location hasn't changed. But the lines aren't parallel at the poles. If you were to start drawing parallel lines from the poles, you would find they converge somewhere along the equator, where they would no longer be parallel. But regardless of where you stand on Earth's surface, the lines look the same and converge in the same place.

[@quatrixx]

@@AvantirMardrakYihn Ah okay, that's what I meant with "relative to the observer". If you start some lines, they are parallel where you are and converge in the distance. I thought (before your reply) that the warping would be such, that there is a center, and the further you go out the more compressed space is. With this, you could be at a place far away from the center, where, if you drew lines on in space you wanted to be parallel, they would be crossing each other right where you are and then when you look towards the center they would be parallel again. But I mean that would be kind of weird since you yourself would also stretch. But do the lines converge and become one line, or do they cross once and then go apart more and more (like on a sphere)?

[@Mosern1977]

I guess you would at least need 4 spatial dimensions for a closed universe to work out.

[@rossthebesiegebuilder3563]

21:25 In this illustration, "precise" and "accurate" seem to be reversed from my usual understanding. Precise means that you consistently get similar results that aren't necessarily right, while accurate means that on average, you get near the true value, even though your individual results may vary greatly.

[@inyobill]

That's pretty well what's illustrated. For example, in the example of "precise", the variance within the sample is much smaller than the derived estimate (average value) differs from the true value.

[@carterthaxton]

inyobill Look at it again. The “clustering” should coincide with “precision”, which has lower variance, as you said. The “centering” on target should be related to “accuracy”. I believe the illustration has this backwards.

[@inyobill]

@@carterthaxton I stand corrected. Der.

[@inyobill]

@@carterthaxton I was probably guilty of "reading" what I expected, vs. what was actually there. Or, maybe, just out to lunch, hard to believe, but, believe me, well in the realm of possibilities.

[@inyobill]

Ross, as Carterthaxton pointed out, you are correct, I was mistaken.

[@tncorgi92]

I don't think they'll ever pinpoint the age of the Universe until dark matter and dark energy are understood better.

[@robertlozyniak3661]

Show me a device that can measure the exact age of the Universe, and I'll show you a clock that can set itself.

[@eds1942]

Robert Lozyniak Clocks can do that (now-a-days). Of course they check the signal from another clock first.

[@GarageSpaceship]

Dark matter and dark energy don't exist. They are mathematical necessities to make sense of a model based on incorrect physics.

[@eds1942]

Brandon Berry Incomplete

[@GarageSpaceship]

@@robertlozyniak3661 Who's to say the universe has any age at all? I would imagine it's eternal and infinite. Time is a construct of the mind.

[@OnePlanetOneTribe]

"That doesn't necessarily mean that the universe is hysterical" - Dr. Becky 2019 19:03

[@alexojideagu]

Mary Jane when she's not being rescued by Spider-Man

[@olafwarnecke8356]

Maybe that Microwave Background is not an Echo of the Big Bang, if there ever was something like that.

[@barlscharkley5411]

Photos or it didn't happen.

[@fivish]

The CBR is not from the BBT its more accurately the black body radiation from all around us. The BBT theory predicted a much hotter CBR. This was fiddled down by 10 times!

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

@@fivish That sounds like Einsteinian methodology. If you can't make it, fake it.

[@DanielA-wb3zy]

So our guesses about things, which we speak about as if we really know anything, are not facts?

[@inyobill]

"Estimates" are not "guesses". Given the number of theories that very well fit measurements, one should not be too dismissive.

[@joeblack4436]

Hi. There is an issue I have always felt makes the study of cosmology problematic in general. Specifically relating to the geometry of the universe. i.e. the distribution of galaxies. However since my knowledge is hardly even at novice level I really just have to ask somebody and hope to get an answer. Let's focus on Andromeda. 2.5 million light years away, and in 3.5 billion years it will collide with our galaxy according to our best estimates. So how exactly do we infer the structure of the universe out beyond say... 3.5 billion light years? The further out you go the more time has elapsed. How can we be sure to any degree what the structure of the universe is at this present time? Most of it has surely shifted radically from what we see when we look out now. I look at the best models of the distribution of galaxies in the universe and... you know the best I can say about it is that it looks pretty much like it is distorted by waves. Like the pattern of light at the bottom of a pool. Refracted by surface waves. And considering an expanding universe - Surely galactic movements that might have been relatively subtle 12 billion years ago might now be massively (you could say cosmically) well... inflated. For me it is just too much of a coincidence. I think our view of the universe is extremely distorted. By the "fog of time" and factors that bend light over cosmological distances. Or do cosmologists have an exact handle on all of it? Do they adjust accurately enough for galactic movement/evolution over time, and do they account sufficiently for all bending of light from gravity wells large and small?

[@TanjoGalbi]

There is a closed shape where the parallel lines do not meet, a torus.

[@vitovittucci9801]

Topology is different, ther's a "hole" inside.

[@MsBrainmuffin]

@@vitovittucci9801 There's lots of "black holes" in the universe. :)

[@nmarbletoe8210]

@@MsBrainmuffin Unless... if the hole in a donut is a point, then all parallel lines would meat at that point.

[@3thomasH]

Check to see if you got precision and accuracy reversed.

[@thehellyousay]

😶

[@letMeSayThatInIrish]

Yes, the illustration with the targets is precisely the way it should be done, although it's not accurate.

[@Solenya1111]

I have enjoyed many of your videos. I particularly enjoyed this one, enough to actually comment (I haven't been catching up in chronological order). You really demonstrate a command of this topic, even if you are "not a cosmologist." I am merely an astrophysics enthusiast, and I DO have to listen carefully at times. But your presentations are very coherent and you appear to respect your audience. I imagine that you may be doing a variation of this sort of public media education for some time to come. I genuinely hope that your apparent love and appreciation of teaching this subject matter continues to shine through in all of your future presentations, regardless of how your work evolves. Thank you, and good luck.

[@hammer-fn7gm]

There is no crisis in cosmology. There is a crisis in our understanding of the universe.

[@dirremoire]

The crisis is scientists can't admit when they're wrong.

[@Easy_Skanking]

*cough* Electric Universe *cough* 😁

[@YouveGot2BshittingMe]

Isnt cosmology our understanding of the universe

[@rickkoenig3793]

YouveGot2BshittingMe yes. That’s exactly what “cosmology” means.

[@hammer-fn7gm]

@@rickkoenig3793 Just meant lack of understanding of the universe.

[@sifuculreif6448]

Titular subject starts at 14:28 .

[@thehellyousay]

And that bothers you, does it? Her little "public service announcements for stargazers feel like a waste of time to you, to they? Aww, muffin...

[@sifuculreif6448]

@@thehellyousay Only when it borders on clickbait, and multiple times says approximately "here's the actual subject" then immediately talks about something else instead.

[@jamesikard7234]

Why not admit that the first hypothesis the big bang, never happened.

[@QuaaludeCharlie]

Dr. Becky , Earth is Flat , Stationary and the center of the Universe :) QC

[@inyobill]

Back to the Ludes, dude.

[@flatearthancap362]

It is but she will not believe you :D

[@darrinmcgann]

The universe is large, quite old and apparently there are holes in it. Or.... It might be older!

[@FreeDemonSoul]

Holes in it?... So there's a chance, that universe in donut shape

[@darrinmcgann]

@@FreeDemonSoul probably more like an English muffin 🍪

[@mradambubb]

Hi Dr Becky, why can't I find any news articles about this current crisis in Cosmology at the moment? Is it because there still needs to be more conclusive studies into it?

[@thetruth45678]

25:10 "This Halloween, this halloween..." Ah, yes. A classic Christmas carol.

[@pentagramprime1585]

New physics: I just wanna find out that we're living in a bus station locker.

[@weird8fishes]

MIB... What's that stand for?!

[@UltimateBargains]

Why you put them rats in my locker?

[@williamgreene4834]

@@weird8fishes My indigo blancmange.

[@shockwave326]

the Electric Universe,,, they can be found on youtube at the Thunderbolts Project if ur looking for understanding of how the universe really works

[@pentagramprime1585]

​@@shockwave326 The Electric Universe theory stopped being credible somewhere around the 1960's and the only people still pushing it are those too lazy to solve a differential equation, take a course in QM theory, or (I suspect) take the time to learn the difference between a dot product and a cross product. The point is, no one really knows how the universe works and those who push stuff like this may as well join a cult because they want answers that appeal to half wits.

[@axcept]

@Dr. Becky, I wonder if you can give us your opinion on the electric universe theory and plasma cosmology. What do you think about it? Does it fall short, in your estimation, in its attempt to provide a better view of cosmology as compared to the gravitational-accretion model? If so, where does it fall short? And finally, where do you stand on all this?

[@Freak80MC]

Honestly this whole thing feeds into something I've been pondering for quite a while, that maybe scientists are going in the wrong direction and don't know it yet because they are creating more and more sophisticated bodges to help explain stuff, when what is really needed might be to just start all over with a new theory or idea and work your way from that. Like basically, what if something that looks right is actually reeeally wrong because it works for some stuff but breaks down somewhere else, because the idea does not represent reality as it really is and is just a sophisticated tool basically? I guess its sorta like, in school when some kid would be like "haha I found this cool trick to do math that is WAY easier than what we're told to do!" and the teacher has to explain that "no, while that may work for some numbers you tried, you haven't seen if it works for all cases, and here is a case where it actually breaks down, proving that isn't how math works fundamentally".

[@jellekaufmann4076]

math might work this way, but math is a tool to serve physics, not a way to empirically prove assumptions without proper observation and valid experimentation

[@slaanmydoodmetnvis]

Isn't it quaint how scientists, especially the "Priesthood" celebrity-class scientists claim that title, yet probably haven't used the *scientific method* since school. What on earth is "Settled Science"? Now if that doesn't scream fraud and fear of discovery then I'm not sure what does. The Crisis in Cosmology has become more and more amplified and hysterical recently with the baseless, ad-hoc, patch-work being applied to fix the leaks that are beginning to sprout everywhere because their unified theory was B.S. from the get go. These bastions and gatekeepers of the "Official Narrative" and all permissible knowledge could be faced with an uncertain and awkward future, perhaps even criminal charges if fraud is exposed ( which we know exists). Let's face it - it's a CULT!! Only what we say is real, how dare you question our authority and proclamations!!? They're even censoring and banning people who question their theories these days. Hell, Bill Nye (not a science guy) suggested arresting people for wrong think. That's where we are folks. They are genuinely frightened and so they should be. The cult needs to expand its totalitarian and draconian stranglehold on the flow of informatio to save itself. That is now well underway. I think we need to go all the way back to Nicola Tesla....and begin again. The world would have been a very different place if bankers like J.P. Morgan and his clique of psychopathic mates weren't stifling discoveries and intellectual property that didn't expand and enrich their selfish agendas. It's indeed telling that when I was at school, there wasn't ANY mention of Tesla at all. Sadly, our history is a litany of the ruination, bankruptcy, defamation and even murder of geniuses who wouldn't toe the line and submit to their corporate masters.

[@Shaft1358]

Source of the crisis: Assuming red shift is solely a Doppler effect and ignoring all other possible causes.

[@KaiShanIV]

Yes, but that one is a religious axiom for them. To acknowledge the possibility that light red shifts as it ages and loses energy would mean the possibility that the universe is not expanding, which threatens the 'big bang' theory which is so central to modern cosmology. This is similar to the 'out of Africa' theory; 200k years ago a volcanic winter nearly exterminated humans, the only surviving population was a few thousand in Ethiopia/Somalia, humans have evolved from that group, but the idea that humans originally evolved in Africa is clung to with zealotry, even though it would mean that we are the only mammalian species to have evolved in Africa without impact from baboon viruses (DNA sheds viruses to self-immunise, baboons are horrible at this and all mammals in Africa either evolved immunity or went extinct). So scientists are not that different from priests; and refuse to question some beliefs.

[@xkguy]

@@KaiShanIV Also Robitaille has raised legitimate objections to the CMB. Plasma studies question dark matter. Robitaille also has strong arguments against current theories of solar structure. There are far bigger crises in cosmology than the mere age of the universe.

[@fivish]

Shaft1358 yes that the crisis as its found to be quantised and that puts the earth at the centre of the universe. cant be!

[@fivish]

KaiShanIV ethiopia is in africa!

[@KaiShanIV]

@@fivish No kidding. The point I was making was that humans did not evolve in Africa 2,000,000 years ago, we evolved at that time somewhere else, as shown by the DNA evidence referred to. But having evolved somewhere else we spread around the world, including Africa. 200,000 years ago an enormous volcanic explosion (believed by most scientists to have been in Indonesia) caused a 'nuclear winter' that wiped out humans everywhere except the population in Ethiopia, where a few thousand people survived. We are all descended from those few thousand, and we have evolved since then into all our different sub-species. So yes, there is an 'out of Africa' from that point, but not from the point two million years ago.

[@planexshifter]

Beautiful & intelligent- Dr. Becky would be a catch!

[@larrybrown9583]

Glad its not just me sitting there thinking how clever this lady is, and also thinking wow she's starting to look really attractive lol

[@SupersuMC]

You guys can have her - my eye's on that red-headed woman over there.

[@brendan1871]

Lots of crackpots in the comments here it seems, claiming that this revelation of incompleteness in cosmological theory somehow disproves cosmology and science and proves whatever nonsensical preconceptions they hold onto.

[@farizkeren5730]

Finally someone said it

[@criskity]

Scientists: Great! We're going to learn more! Creationists and flat-earthers: Haha! Teh syentists keep changing they're minds!

[@b-manz]

Maybe the flat earth’ers. Have you seen Hugh Ross?

[@jamesmoore5630]

I am stopped at .43 into your video and can wait just long enough to tell you a life joke, before I watch it. In 1989 I took my first Astronomy class at St. Gregory's university in Shawnee Oklahoma. It was a small University with an average class size of 15 students. But the Astronomy class room was full. Dr. James Meyer was the instructor and his first speach was are you in the right class? Anyone who thinks this class will be about horoscopes, Tarot cards, and mind reading raise your hand. About 15 people raised there hands. He said you are in the wrong class, please go to you guidance counselor and change courses. Then we were down to twelve. But you are an astrophysics professor so I am ready to go!!! Brother James OSB OFS OSC

[@v44n7]

thanks for sharing!

[@rodnorris9532]

The Universe probably finds our 'crises' humorous.

[@fault3k]

We are the universe finding our own ignorance humorous. There is no separation.

[@EsotericGold_net]

The only crisis in cosmology, is that, The Electric Universe and the Thunderbolts Project, is changing the way people look at everything. Get with the times my friends.😁😁😁

[@josephjohnson3738]

Because cosmologists just keep making schiff up and then pretending they are discoveries. People are weary of that, and seeking more sensical ideas and more sensical scientists outside the main stream.

[@LudwigHohlwein1974]

Not one of these science channels ever dares discuss the EU, their repeatedly accurate predictions or the constant failings of standard model cosmology. Douchebags.

[@jonhutto580]

Ever think about Neutron Star's? They are almost strong enough to form a black hole but not quite.. What is it like in their core? All that pressure, and heat and gravity, but just not quite enough.

[@steenkigerrider5340]

"the crisis in cosmology - none of the data agreed on the age of the Universe before, but now it just got a whole lot worse" Perhaps the ostracized Halton Arp was right after all and deserves rehabilitation.

[@moshanr1951]

Yep he does

[@geraldfinn436]

Re red giant: is it possible that the earlier measure of mass was just the best that was available at the time?

[@deborahhanna6640]

Or that it was at the far point of its orbit away from our instruments- & was never actually engulfed? Is it possible that it was far enough out that it stayed in the 'safety zone' & is now detectable? She said it was a matter of years- which might be how long a cycle around or partially around would take.

[@davidhume5399]

Or is it possible this is an example of solar fission in the creation of a planet from mass from the star?

[@vpr123west]

@@deborahhanna6640 It would be more likely that the mass loss from the star caused drag on the planet and slowed it orbit. This is how it is suspected hot Jupiters form in new star systems.

[@deborahhanna6640]

If enough mass ejected into a dense enough debris field- possibly. It would have to overcome a lot of force pushing out against it in the form of all the solar radiation & wind. But hey they tell us that if an asteroid were heading for us right now that we somehow managed to blow up- it would reform just as quick back into one asteroid if the mass were enough to hold it together even against the forces driving it to move apart. So is the mass greater than the force?

[@reloksat]

Enjoyable, very informative and engaging. Thanks!

[@bgilchrist228]

Acorrding to the Heliocentric non scientific model, Mars and Mercury should never be seen in a night sky.

[@andrewharing2637]

What? Why not check out Space engine and see that not being true?

[@danielscott9095]

So explain South America to Sydney flight. Your "model" equates to over 2 days. Takes around 13 hrs. Feel free to answer.

[@bgilchrist228]

@@andrewharing2637 Because I can draw their orbits to scale.

[@bgilchrist228]

@@danielscott9095 I am not sure there are any South America to Sydney flights, have you ever been on one?

[@ColinJonesPonder]

To be fair, "Stop The Cavalry" was never meant to be a Christmas song 😂

[@ColinJonesPonder]

That's why it became one ;)

[@kenlee5509]

Mel Gibson makes Christmas movies.

[@masoud6398]

Thank you Dr. Please make more time for Cosmology and introduce more amazing papers.

[@MisterItchy]

6:26 "ecscape" ... I love your videos Dr. Becky! Maybe it's not a black hole at all. Maybe it's just a very heavy teapot. Keep singing the Christmas songs. I do it in all year long! It really annoys my wife.

[@pafnutiytheartist]

It's literally impossible to argue with the teapot hypothesis.

[@epiccollision]

pafnutiytheartist unless you consider the cozy conjecture, it’s simply to massive.

[@timothymarchant9079]

"We don't know!" The most infuriating and exciting phrase in physics! (closet ABBA fan Doc?) 😁

[@bodan1196]

Right after hearing someone "axing" a question. Is this one of these things similar to; "try to not think of a polar bear for a minute"? Might it actually be too obnoxious to not become a reality? It is 'asking' not 'axing'. (I will exit left... ;-)

[@Draecko]

@@bodan1196 Potato, potato. Tomato, tomato. It's part of pronunciation/dialect, whether it's proper English or not.

[@bodan1196]

@@Draecko Oh... I exited left stage, did not expect a bis'. Thank you? ;-) The old get set in our way, and can't fathom the lingo, so we must protest. Don't take it too seriously. That is for me to... do?

[@WarhavenSC]

@@bodan1196 kzbin.info/www/bejne/jamlYpp4a7BgaKM

[@bodan1196]

@@WarhavenSC English is not my first language, but I do suspect that what she speaks, would qualify as a third one, no? Got the jist, but most was just... well. Thank you for the laugh. :-)

[@rreiter]

Could it be that there is some inherent uncertainty in measuring the age of the universe, along the lines of Heisenberg? Perhaps the act of measuring disturbs something that makes the calculation incorrect.

[@jeffffro7674]

I think you are the only person involved with any of this ridiculousness making any valid or rational thought!!!!!! Thank you!!!

[@waynebow-gu7wr]

The Electric Universes theories are much more credible.

[@lenafranklin7262]

It's TOTALLY AN ELECTRIC UNIVERSE🌈

[@waynebow-gu7wr]

@@lenafranklin7262 If the main stream ' science ' is going to be pushed as the new religion... then they have competition already ( just like all the other religions).... and it seems to make more sense.... with less theories ( dark matter).

[@MirekHeikkila]

@@lenafranklin7262 haha so good!!! :) :P

[@Robert_Browne]

That's why I never hang out with Cosmologists. They're all about the drama.

[@kristypolymath1359]

And they love to talk about balls swinging.

[@justindavis2711]

@Ben Louis "yea but gravity is also a theory!" - said by arrogant militant atheist cosmologist defending his belief that all of existence came from nothing and pretending its scientific and not just philosophy

[@FOUNDEDEARTHBROTHERS]

We can see Jupiter for over 6 months and Jupiter takes 12 years to orbit the sun from what we're told. This to me is a crisis. Shouldn't be able to see it for that long. Also, the moons of Jupiter have been seen as crescent moons while Jupiter was as always fully illuminated. They should all have the same lighting if receiving light from the sun. And could you imagine the weatherman on Jupiter? Looks like a 100% chance of a hurricane unless someone photoshops it out lol. That thing has always been there and always will and it's not a hurricane. Lots of people waking up to the crisis and seeing that even earth isn't what we're told. The stars are for signs and seasons and placed in the firmament which is an expanse that we've seen in recent times.

[@jadesea562]

I found some liquid in my water. I smiled.