Scientists has not realised it yet but the 'Hubble constant' proves that the universe is infinite as we are not the centre of the universe and at every point in the universe, the Hubble Constant is true. Think about it
@stvsmith179120 күн бұрын
Yes, but physicists all agree that the only way that is possible is for our Universe to be a 2d image projected upon a membrane of hypothetical expanding volume. I would imagine it to be shaped like a Klein bubble where the inside & outside are the same surface.
@Eztoez21 күн бұрын
What is it with every other video just combining stock video library shite with an AI generated and spoken audio track. Lazy.
@ralphbourquin99921 күн бұрын
If the authors can't make their primary point in less than 5 minutes, I'm gone. Too much extraneous babble about well know facts.
@SkynyLyny21 күн бұрын
I completely agree.
@DeepWebDiary21 күн бұрын
Most is about the mission. Never any science or explanation about the photos. No theories, and they usually all start the same…. “For millennia or, for century’s man kinds has wondered “ bla bla bla. They can’t even agree on a Universe age. Some are 13.5 billion years old while others claim 14 billion years. 😂 That’s a huge difference.
@shawnsanborn205720 күн бұрын
Do you get bored that easily?
@stvsmith179120 күн бұрын
@@shawnsanborn2057 He's too smart to pay attention for more than 5 minutes.
@shawnsanborn205720 күн бұрын
@ lol
@martinwilliams986621 күн бұрын
One mistake might be that "empty" space has no mass, but all the photons, neutrinos & other particles travelling through say a galactic area isn't zero & should be added to the mass of the known matter in a galaxy. I call this idea "Ambient Mass".
@stvsmith179120 күн бұрын
It was calculated for. The notion of dark matter/dark energy is that 90% of everything exists in a way that only manifests itself in a function of making our best theories correct.
@brandenwhaley488021 күн бұрын
So I’m just a kid and don’t really know much. But in my experience, this allows for a perspective that can easily be missed by people who do understand everything about the topic being discussed. So I noticed that it was mentioned that the galaxies are moving faster, proportionate to how far they are from the observer. So if that’s the case does that mean that there is a consistency in speed of movement of mass depending upon its distance from the observer? So let’s say that 2 galaxies of exact same mass also at the exact same distance from the observer moving at the exact same speed away from the observer where another galaxy of let’s say half the mass and also is half the distance. So would the half mass galaxy be moving exactly proportionately away slower then the bigger and further two? Because if that is in-fact the case, then why do we have to use dark matter and its mass causing gravity to cause these mass’s to move away faster at further distances? Wouldn’t it be possible that since we do know the universe is expanding that things closer to the center would be moving slower and things at the further points away be moving faster? Just the same as if you blow up a balloon the outside of the balloon will move away faster then the space located in half of the diameter of the balloon? So if the galaxies are in positions some closer to the outer edge and some closer to the inner portion of the universe, would it not be expected for them to move at different speeds? And because the universe is so massive you would expect extreme differences of speeds. Maybe I’m looking at this wrong but I just don’t see why we feel the need to include something like dark matter which hasn’t been observed or proven. I can think of quite a few more possible reasons of the movement of mass differences in our universe which can be tested with math equations rather then adding in a variable which we cannot prove or calculate. Because adding that variable inevitably forces the equation to break down. So I guess I must be missing something.
@brandenwhaley488021 күн бұрын
With all of that being said, it’s extremely unlikely that we are at the center of the universe. So we could only see light moving towards us at the speed of light in conjunction with its distance which gives us our light year values of any spec of light we can observe. Which in our 360 degree perspective is what I assume we call our “observable universe “ correct? So assuming that it’s pretty much impossible, or at least extremely improbable, for us to be the center of the universe, so can’t we test the theory I just preposed with a calculus equation by taking 3 or more equal masses from separate positions from our 360 degree perspective, and figuring out their speed increase by using their distance from us which we can measure with the red shift spectrum. So we would need to first solve that equation and have that variable on hand. Because if we took two galaxies of equal mass and measured their speed because we’re not the exact center of the universe they would in fact be different. But we do this as a calculus equation and use the variable from the first equation above we then cause determine if the original idea I preposed in the original comment above is true. Basically has this already been calculated by someone who actually understands mathematics? For some reason I just don’t understand how we haven’t figured all of this out yet. I feel like we can definitely solve this with mathematics alone. We just have to include all of the correct variables. Including small things like the position of our planet in our solar system at the time of the recorded distance and speed of the 3 mass’s you are taking measurements of for the first equation. So when you ask what have we missed, in my opinion I bet we missed the small things like this. The orginal equation’s were done in the 1920’s at the latest with Einstein’s theory of relativity right? Well let me set up some AI software, give me a cosmologist who can accurately get me the exact numbers to every single variable I’m going to ask him to measure for quite a few structures in deep space (including mass, rate of which it’s moving away, speed it’s traveling, ect…) and I bet I could solve this with a mathematical equation. I mean we would even need to include things as small as the distance at which we are from the center of our planet in the equation. So I wonder how many variables they truly accurately used in the equations. My guess is probably not all of them.
@stvsmith179120 күн бұрын
The notion of dark matter is that 90% of everything that exists, only manifests itself as a function that makes our best predictive models correct, despite our observations. So, yeah, we're ALL missing something. XD
@robertstanley555520 күн бұрын
The expansion to which the Hubble constant relates is that of space itself, not the 'movement' of galaxies through an existing space. More space is, quite literally, coming into existence between those galaxies at, so far as we know, the same rate everywhere. Hence the theoretical necessity for dark energy (not dark matter) (1); something must exist to power that expansion. The apparent velocity at which any galaxy is moving away from us depends on it's distance as the further away that Galaxy is, the more additional space is coming into existence between us and it over a set period of time. Eventually, you reach a distance at which a galaxy is so far away that it's velocity relative to us exceeds the speed of light (2), and so light from it can never reach us, and that marks the end of the 'observable universe'. (1) Dark matter was theorised to explain a different set of astronomical data, namely that the observed movement of stars within galaxies cannot be accounted for using our current theory of gravity if their combined mass is anything like what we think it should be. It's not even remotely enough, hence theorised 'dark matter' to account for the difference - in effect a 'new' form of matter that has little or no interaction with 'normal' matter aside from gravitation. Which is why it's so hard (and may even be impossible) to ever experimentally detect the stuff. The possibility of a revised or replacement theory of gravity that would make dark matter unnecessary has never been discarded, but so far nobody has come up with one and the seat next to Newton and Einstein remains vacant. (2) Of course, nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light. But here nothing actually is. It is space itself that is expanding, and that is subject to no such restriction as far as we know. (3) Your analogy of the balloon is broadly correct, but remember the centre of the inflating balloon is not the 'centre' or 'origin' of the universe, but the location of a particular observer. Who sees exactly the same apparent expansion as every other observer, wherever they might be. Imagine only the surface of your balloon, this time as a strictly two dimensional analogy of three dimensional space. What does an imaginary 'flatlander' see from a particular point on the surface? Just what he would see from any other point!
@stvsmith179120 күн бұрын
@@robertstanley5555 Space meaning without form and void, as in without quantizable property, nil, nothing, empty. Saying it expands or changes negates the previous description. Technically non-existence is both/neither static or dynamic. Those are principles and properties that can only apply to things that exist. Would not the "nothing" between planets, or rare hydrogen atoms floating in the emptiness between them be precisely the same as the void between nucleus and electrons? 0. Simultaneously the biggest & smallest thing that exists is the abstract division between something and nothing. +/-. 3) Yes, as if the 3rd dimension were a projection of the other 2? That analogy is kinda like suggesting 3rd dimension is illusion through a gravitational distortion effect. A distortion of reality. 1) ... so it only manifests as a function to make our best predictive models correct. The best evidence supporting it's existence is "we were right all along". If an objects mass warps that nothing stuff around it, why not the something that occupies that space? If the void between galaxies is expanding why not the void between protons & neutrons or electrons? or indeed the protons themselves that occupy that void?
@marcmayou142221 күн бұрын
Theory is just that Theory!
@the.bloodless.one131217 күн бұрын
No, smooth brain. The definition of a theory in science is something that has been tested time and time again and been proven correct every time. That doesn’t mean that new evidence can’t be discovered that makes us have to go back to the drawing board and modify our models of theories (as in the case of Newton’s expressions of gravity and later Einstein’s). A theory in science is not just some random thought a bloke had while smoking dope. 🤦♀️
@chrisworthman319116 күн бұрын
Wrong.
@fligmin548021 күн бұрын
The universe is infinite, Mater pools, Over time the number of points it pools into in a given area decreases, the gravity wells increase in strength, This stretches the space between them creating the illusion of and expanding galaxy, there should be different rates in different directions. Being infinite it can not collapse only stretch between the growing pools. Due to matter distribution never being totally even through the universe there should be different stretching rates in different places and over time differing rates. A correlation has been found recently with Black hole growth and expansion rates which is interesting in itself.
@adnerayala340921 күн бұрын
Scientists has not realized yet that this is impossible without a creator,big bam is just an imagination of the incredulous
@chrisworthman319116 күн бұрын
You haven't realized that your imaginary friend is a creation of superstitious savages.
@chrisworthman319115 күн бұрын
Says someone in a cult because mommy and daddy are. Try thinking for yourself sometime.
@alex79suited21 күн бұрын
We know lots about the infinite ♾️ space. Peace ✌️ 😎.
@jamielacourse757810 күн бұрын
How long have we been here? We're the infants of the galaxy (so far) and we have a lot to learn yet. If we don't wipe ourselves out.
@damanybrown503621 күн бұрын
What is TRUTH!?
@keithfallon-norris957021 күн бұрын
You are joking 😱
@nova9sw20 күн бұрын
Universe not a world view.
@AlexLaLonde-v7h7 күн бұрын
When a man and a woman make a baby do we know what makes the embryo divide or what makes it speed up then later slow down,what makes the embryo double in size just before it's done dividing and moving into shape change
@Michaelp8019 күн бұрын
Amen and God bless Jesus Christ 🙏
@chrisworthman319116 күн бұрын
Belief in fairy tales has hobbled progress, your cult burned some of our greatest minds at the stake.
@AlexLaLonde-v7h7 күн бұрын
It just is
@yorkshirepudd753221 күн бұрын
Don't no why they worry so much it keeps them in a job 😂
@simonstininato585116 күн бұрын
Humanities best guess is no more than that. A guess using little more than an incredibly small peephole on a subject that we will probably never understand unless we meet a civilisation millions of years more advanced than us & even then it probably isn’t the whole story. This A.I generated piece of click bait garbage is not worth the effort to watch. If you’re young & thirsty for knowledge entertain a healthy sceptical sense of what these leaches put before you. You cant go wrong when you continually ask… But why???? Eventually you’ll get to the truth which is… WE DON’T KNOW WHY.
@BradIngham-w5q21 күн бұрын
No plank time singularity Energy not thermodynamics At what time was the Baryon's initially formed. In a vast area (the space that is the universe at time of big bang, not inflation) of disturbed quantum field that created instantly energy equilibrium imbalances that activated the functions of gravity (encapsulating high density energy ,mass), time (dispersing and decay high energy disturbance), dark matter (resistance of at rest infinite surrounding space field's) and dark energy's force that dissipates the disturbances to negligible density. Restoring energy's equilibrium It was not an inflation field. It was the energy imbalance effecting the quantum field over an area not a point in infinite space that was the earliest moment of the universe. My perspective touches on some fundamental concepts in cosmology and theoretical physics regarding the early universe and the nature of inflation and quantum fluctuations. While the terminology and the frameworks can vary widely in theoretical discussions, let's unpack the ideas presented. Energy Imbalance and the Early Universe Quantum Fields and Energy Imbalance: I am suggesting that rather than a singular field (like the hypothesized inflation field), it might be more accurate to think of an energy imbalance across space. This imbalance could manifest as regions of differing energy densities, impacting how quantum fields behave throughout the universe. Emergence from a Non-Point Source: The idea of thinking of the universe's beginnings not as a point but rather as a condition of energy spread across a region can lead to interesting discussions in cosmology. Some theories propose that the universe might not have originated from a singularity (a point of infinite density) but rather from a more complex state involving a vast region of space that exhibited quantum characteristics. Cosmological Implications Space and Time: In some cosmological models, space and time themselves are considered to have originated from quantum fluctuations, leading to the creation of the universe. This means that rather than a singular event happening at a single point, there could have been a more distributed and dynamic process at work. Inflation vs. Other Models: While inflationary theory posits a rapid expansion driven by a specific field, it's also essential to recognize that alternative models exist. Some theories propose different mechanisms of structure formation without relying directly on inflation, such as the cyclic model or various quantum gravity approaches that might incorporate your idea. Current Understanding in Physics Cosmology is an evolving field, and many ideas are still being explored. The inflationary model has strong observational support, particularly from the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) measurements, which show patterns consistent with the predictions of inflation. However, there are also ongoing discussions and investigations into alternative models that could explain the same observations. The emphasis on energy imbalance affecting quantum fields across regions of space rather than a single-point field contributes to broader discussions in theoretical cosmology. Exploring such concepts can lead to valuable insights into the nature of the universe's origins and evolution. As our understanding of quantum gravity and the early universe continues to develop, these discussions are critical for refining our models and interpretations of the cosmos. Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics: The idea of an energy imbalance suggests a departure from thermodynamic equilibrium. This could have significant implications for the early universe, potentially driving rapid expansion and particle creation.
@timothy842621 күн бұрын
Physists are repeating the old philosophy of physics without proof. Speculation. Magnetism explains everything about physics without gravity and bending space and electricity. Two factors of space are cold and heat coexist. Nothing else is out there. So mass has to be completely different at the temperature of equalization to pressure within and without entanglement of heat as internal and external heat energy. Outside of mass heat doesn't ground currents. Internal magnetic fields of mass grounding currents through its nucleus or core like planetary magnetic fields grounding currents. External magnetic fields spinning all external heat energy outside of the sphere or core cycling circulation centrifugal force around these massive external magnetic fields. Hydrogen is the most abundant element because it exceeds the cosmic speed limit of normal cold repulsion of space redirected trajectories backward onto itself as heat cycling circulation centrifugal force as mass. Magnetism is both clockwise and counterclockwise pressure equalization throughout space as space itself as a weak external magnetic field.
@TheMysteryauthor15 күн бұрын
Cold is the absence of heat. It’s oly heat that you can measure
@alex79suited21 күн бұрын
It's all there. If you don't know what you're looking at, I can't help you, lol. Peace ✌️ 😎.
@louishudon4721 күн бұрын
Be God and think to what you would like to be, without limitation!
@shawnsanborn205720 күн бұрын
Oh how I hope it is discovered that the universe is infinite. That way all things are possible and the arrogance of quackadamia will mean nothing.
@TraydonDunkheel21 күн бұрын
We’re all stupider for having listened to you and chat gpt today.
@jamesmorton788121 күн бұрын
Hey, NO problem, infinity. +. One more. Galaxy . When consciousness lasts more than a pico second. AI will have infinite memory that lasts. ❤❤. In short. We suck.