The REAL Reason Why Space is Dark

[@officialinterstellarnews]

What are some questions you have always wondered about the universe? Let me know!

[@ahmedullah227]

How can the space expand itself ? 👀 And you said space can do anything.... Is that space can do anything or else we haven't found why it expands and does each and every single thing ? I mean you see... We first though that this earth is the only planet and we revolve around the sun (olden days)... And then we found out we have a solar system in which there are other planets... And we then found we have other interesting things inside our solar system itself... And didn't find many ! Even we couldn't fully find the facts about the planet we live in as well ! Like we haven't found many things about our ocean... And we recently found out our inner core has stopped rotating...(before that we don't know it would stop)... THUS now we found many galaxies and beyond that in half terms and we conclude them based on wavelengths just like that.. Now I was asking myself these questions ..... What could drive the space itself to expand and to create these galaxies? ( Like we have you know... Water cycle we have evaporation and then it results to condensation and precipitation..)? Around 13.7 billion years ago, everything in the entire universe was condensed in an infinitesimally small singularity, a point of infinite denseness and heat. Suddenly, an explosive expansion began, ballooning our universe outwards faster than the speed of light. Why we have finalized that there was a singularity and it exploded to create these things... And why did we decide that there is only one such infinitesimally small singularity and so on 🤯 It's complicated even to explain my questions clearly 😂 But it may sound crazy what I said... But i guess some others would have these questions or questions which are similar to mine 🤔

[@hipe4191]

Nice video...very interesting.💜

[@gretchencampbell9213]

This may be a dumb question but I can't remember if it's something I previously learned back in the old days when I was in school 30 some years ago lol. I was wondering if space has always been expanding faster than the speed of light or has it sped up over the years of us knowing how to sort of measure space and the universe an all.

[@Knights_reverie]

The universe was created by God ❤

[@hipe4191]

@@Knights_reverie • God is scientific & loving but this is about astrophysics.

[@SIN3JASON]

I just always assume that space was black because it goes on infinitely and if it goes on infinitely then there's nothing for light to bounce off of like walls. You can see light off in the darkness because light is always brighter than darkness, but the reason why space engulfs everything in Black is because there's no end to it there's no walls for the light to refract off of it just goes infinitely out into nothing and there is nothing for light to refract off of except for other planets and other stars which are literally light-years multiple light-years even away from each other. This is just my opinion this isn't a scientific guess... But I think space is black because it has no end or at least not one that we can see from our observable universe.

[@thehellyousay]

Only reason we see anything is reflection of all or various hues of visible light to our eyes, or direct light hitting our eyes, which is why we only see tiny points of light from stars

[@chrisreed5463]

In an infinite static universe with no beginning, every part of the night sky would have photons coming in. So it would all be bright. As it is, there are only photons coming in from up to 13.7bn years ago, and the furthest(oldest) light is red shifted into the invisible infra-red.

[@miltonruas5368]

But if space is infinite, so the number of stard are also infinite, and wherever you look to the sky there would be a star for sure, and so we would see white everywhere... unless in the direction you are looking the star is so far away the light didn't reach us yet, and that is the Edgar Poe's explanation. But if the universe had no beginning, that explanation would not be enough.

[@SIN3JASON]

I was just thinking along the lines that if the universe is so large and it has no end without Walls or some large stopping point there would be nothing for light to reflect off of because it would go in all directions infinitely. I'm just guessing of course I have no idea because I've never been to space I'm just trying to figure how light would react if there's nothing for it to reach. My eyes work as far as being able to see Light that is so far away you can only really see it by looking off to the left or right of the light because of the dead spot that is in every human eye. So I was just thinking maybe space goes on infinitely and there's nothing for light to reflect off of plus our eyes can only see but so far anyway. All of this of course I'm just guessing

[@sethwatkins5586]

Can we speed up light to illuminate parts of space itself?

[@Spaceunknown]

This is a masterpiece of a video! will certainly be awaiting you're future ones!

[@officialinterstellarnews]

Kind of you to say! So glad you enjoyed it 🚀

[@peterjackson2666]

Wow, never heard before about Poe’s forays into astrophysics. Fascinating.

[@TM-vk8wf]

Questions: (1) If time and space are infinite, what was there before the big bang? (2) Is there a mechanism in theoretical physics that could cause the universe to contract? (3) Might one or more black holes cause the universe to contract so that another big bang could occur in 14 billion years or so? (a) Could dark matter serve as the thread to enable universe contraction even though we may now think the gravitational pull of a black hole is limited by proximity to observable matter? (4) If the universe began contracting would the night sky "brighten?" (5) Even if humans figure out interstellar/intergalactic travel - perhaps by digitizing consciousness to travel by electrical/radio or other means - could that escape the destructive force of a universe contraction that may lead to another big bang or are we eventually doomed in another 14 billion years or so?

[@Sam-me5pl]

Great questions. The contraction hypothesis has been disproved, as the expansion of space is too great for matter to contact. But I think you're intuitively onto something. From what I've studied (classical and quantum mechanics which describes how the macro and micro objects move like a ball or planet vs an electron or proton. And some quantum field theory) Quantum field theory lead Stephen Hawking I believe beyond the event horizon of a black hole, there'd be a soup of plasma like a star, a bunch of scattering electrons, photons and neutrons, acting as like the crust of earth. And like earth, the closer to the core, the higher the energy, and the higher the energy the less ordered the matter, so below that I imagine would be just photons and electrons along with quarks, gluons, etc, and below that I believe there's a state of matter not discovered as it only would exist in this un reachable, non observable location and no physics can predict beyond the event horizon so I believe it's essential to combine conceptual logic with mathematical logic. The descriptions of a black hole and the universe before the big bang are identical. Hawking radiation was a theory developed by the late great physicist, but the way he explains the loss of mass observed in black holes, would be like if an ant on a bathroom counter top observed the flush of a toilet, if it could do calculus, it could invent a new phenomenon let's call it super natural evaporation, one could derive a series of equations that quantifies the rate the water disappears, the calculations could accurately predict the rate the toilet bowl drains, but without knowing the concept of plumbing and to simplify it let's say the ant is 2d, on a 2d surface, without being able to conceptualize or invoke the 3rd dimension, to the observer it'd seem as though the water disappeared. Hawking radiation suggests that the black hole loses mass by radiating outward, due to complex fluctuations and interactions between what are called virtual particles that instantaneously form a particle and its anti particle, they cancel each other out so are called virtual particles, hawking radiation says that the immense gravity of the blackhole causes some of those virtual particles to be separated by a sufficient distance so that they don't interact and cancel each other out, causing a leakage of particles. This could accurately describe the loss in mass of a black hole but I think it's going to be disproven one day. If the gravitavitational force is so great that the fastest moving particle, a photon, can't escape, I don't see how one of the paired "virtual particles" would escape even if moving at the speed of light, why would it be exempt from the event horizons limits. We can observe space expanding in all directions with galaxies flying away from each other like a polka dotted balloon being inflated. I believe the big bang never stopped banging, and it's more of an eternal stream rather than a singular pulse, this would explain why space expanded in the first place and the recycling of matter through black holes back to the point of creation would explain the dark energy we observe. And maybe the dark matter we observe is some higher dimension super imposed on us, which by the way is a fundamental part of quantum field theory. The description of the big bang is the antithesis of a black hole in terms of functionality, one moves energy inward the other outward but both reach points of infinite density where the laws of physics collapse, everything collapses even photons into the purest state or energy that exists which we can't ever interact with because it can only exist under immense gravity and sufficient distortion of space-time. It seems inevitable to me that everything will eventually end up in a black hole, I think it's possible the energy that makes up our atoms have already cycled through an infinite series of black holes. And to explain the darkness in space while having an infinite universe, I once heard a physicist say the whole night sky should be white if space is infinite. But if space is infinite and stars are, then so would gaseous clouds that could block the light, plus the answers within the question, an infinite universe would have infinite space but light doesn't travel instantaneously, there 2 trillion galaxies estimated within our 93 billion light year diameter observable sphere, the radius being the distance we can see in all directions. Space is expanding faster than light so not only would there be an infinite amount of gaseous clouds to block the light, there'd be so much space light doesn't have the time to travel to us, and with space expanding faster than light, you have light being carried to us faster than light travels itself, space is expanding in every direction so light will be carried to us and from us like ocean currents. This is why we can see 41.5 billion light-years away from us when the light hasn't had that much time to travel to us, in the inverse situation, spaces expansion is carrying light away from us. Duality is interwoven into the fabric of space time, for every electron there's a positron, there's up and down, left and right, right and wrong, it's present not only in physics but psychology. So what's the opposite of a black hole? Sounds a lot like the big bang to me, I believe all black holes are connected to the point of creation like rivers to the ocean, where the cycle of precipitation, and recycling repeats. Physicists would say that asking what came before the big bang is a paradoxical question as it supposes there was time and space before the big bang, and since the math can't prove it, we just throw up our hands in defeat. But I think your question is crucial. How does everything coming from nothing producing an infinite space that expands due to an inexplicable dark energy make more sense than eternal system of creation, destruction and recycling, where by the recycling process accounts for the dark energy, occams razor leaves me to believe the latter is most logical. Also, the point of creation is always going to be relative to the beings who evolve after it cools down enough for matter and life to exist. Also its believed just by the rate of expansion we observe, the observable universe relative to the "entire" universe (quotations are needed because I believe the universe is infinite, so for entire universe here I more so mean calculable size) so the observable universe relative to the calcuable size of the universe is that of an atom to the observable universe. So even the most conservative theories paint an incredible image. One in which our 93 billion light year diameter bubble is nothing but an atom compared to the calculable size. We are like a bubble of air in an infinite sea. It's overwhelming to think about but awe inspiring. The fact we exist at all is quite astounding

[@SmallBalls-fl6oh]

A blackhole was there before the Big Bang my son.. The are infinite Big Bangs on the otherside of infinite Blackholes.. It just doesn't end. Now you can rest knowing the truth child

[@Scott-i9v2s]

Re (1): The BigBang theory implies (presupposes?) space-time being a single-ended infinity, bounded at its beginning but not in the other direction(s???). To me this means that a "before the BB" need not exist. UNLESS our universe is an entity within some other entity. Which imho opens up another whole can o' worms...

[@dralord1307]

@@Sam-me5pl Consider the big rip hypothesis. We know zero point energy exists. The very fabric of space is energy. In the event of the big rip, where every atom and subatomic particle is ripped apart back to the lowest possible state of energy "pure energy" why wouldnt space then collapse on itself. Snapping back to that singular point of super condensed energy and again "bang" starting a new universe.

[@solomongrundy3411]

There is no way everything BOOM is here. There's no way a blast made randomly made all life on earth. All humans finger prints are all different. No need for social security numbers or race or anything primitive.

[@FirstnameLastname-bv8ke]

I saw the arrows and red circles on your thumbnails and thought your videos might be clickbaitish and low-quality but that was an excellent video and your editing is very good. Great content, subbed. Hope you continue to grow.

[@kit2770]

"Space can do whatever it wants." Space is such a boss.

[@kathleenmccrory9883]

Edgar Allen Poe is a fascinating man. That was very interesting.

[@officialinterstellarnews]

He absolutely was. I only learned this side of him recently. Makes me an even bigger fan.

[@intellectually_lazy]

@@officialinterstellarnews e.a. poe was a fascinating man. he hid a heart 'neath the floorboards with his dick in his hand. he said, excuse me lenore, i'm just a doin' my duty, ring my bells, bells, bells, and give me some booty

[@ChatterUniverse]

He was also a pedophile lol.

[@msob7y]

he was indeed, check out some scientific facts in quran which preceded these great people

[@Mastervitro]

Or... photons aren't constantly hitting your eyes from light years away because they're not enough of them due to the distance and spreading apart more the farther it comes from, therefor you only get a little bit of light every so often making it appear black. You could take a "deep field" image for a very very long time and probably end up with nothing but white but with obvious spots of more exposure than others.

[@realdakrith]

Or simply because space is nothing and nothing = black because it does and there is no explanation to it.

[@FAK_CHEKR]

I read where stars twinkle and planets don’t for that reason - - intermittent photons from stars.

[@ft3917]

the frequense off light gets lower the more it travels. so at very long distance, you might not be able to the the light, because it becomes microwave frequense. and we can not see microwave. well it starts to go towards infra red, then microwave. and we also can not see infra red. simple as that. the light frequence gets even lower every time it passes heavy gravity that bends the light.

[@emzytofficial]

​@@realdakrithso im nothing?

[@dumiicris2694]

@@ft3917 frequency should be constant at least thats how it could be but ure right it lowers .. because its light and light travels and its constant and bla1 bla2.. bla(n+1)=> universe is expanding cause frequency lowers with space .. with space interactions occur the more interactions the less frequency.. in fact we see light at one frequency through a medium the frequency lowers the speed changes its all about interactions .. like u said and since we dont know how it works universe is expanding isnt brainless a bitch? :) its just what happens with radio waves or it should we dont have a radio that can work un multiple frequencies like the eyes very easy can do

[@priztucker]

That last part about Space not being bound by rules is the answer to everything.

[@jdoe9518]

Problem is people make up the rules. In fact people made up everything people believe. When the things people made up are repeatable people call it science. No ones knows anything because there is no way to truly validate anything. It's all nothing but groups of people having shared beliefs in various speculations.

[@OneCreator87]

It has rules tho. We just dont understand them.

[@TheWallReports]

I thought that was interesting as well. Space itself can expand faster than light but the speed of light within space is confined to a limit.

[@blumind_web2264]

@@TheWallReportsso yes and no yes the universe is expanding faster than light but not because the galaxies are moving through space faster than light but that space time itself is expanding faster than light, because space is fucking weird

[@SSgtBaloo]

When I was young, the theory being taught in school (elementary through high school, anyway) was that the inverse square law was responsible, but the way they explained it was kind of awkward, as if they were repeating something that had been explained to them (probably as poorly) which they did not fully understand. When questioned, they would just appeal to authority ("are you saying that scientists who studied this were wrong?) and then change the subject. Along similar lines, I had a math teacher who insisted, much to my annoyance, that there might be an even (divisible by two) prime number greater than two, but it just hadn't been discovered yet. It was years before I could articulate why I thought this was wrong: if it's only divisible by itself and one, it's a prime number. A "prime number" greater than two was impossible because it would not fit the definition of a prime number, since it would be divisible by itself and one _and_ two.

[@dandywaysofliving]

As ai idbe confused But in reality. What is the difference between 1 and 2 . As ai I'd ask. . . ...

[@hankwhite9731]

So in theory there is something that is faster than the speed of light?

[@EliezerFrazer]

well if there seems to be a problem you should question it

[@rhonsliner7528]

well you explained something about most of us older generation knows already but i guess this is a great educational video for younger generation who are interested in space

[@petertsu6977]

Space is completely black because there is no medium to focus the light emitted by distant stars. eg.the picture projected onto a screen shows up because of the screen stops the light from disappearing into space. We see stars because Earth has an atmosphere to focus the distant light and thus we see only the point of emission. The rest just goes on into infinity similar to the projected picture without a screen to stop the projected light.😒

[@cherylsalisbury571]

“Dark matter” or “dark energy” is the soup of all creation. Suns/stars burn it as fuel as well. It would make sense that there would be an endless supply in order for the universe to maintain itself as well as for more stars, planets, and life forms to continue to be created and be sustained.

[@ashby5446]

Happy an account was made, been watching ur vids on snapchat for a while and have even checked youtube for your channel some months ago and never found anything, very happy i now have another enjoyable science news outlet for my peaked curiosity

[@officialinterstellarnews]

Glad you’re here! We have loads of Shorts and more about every other day. We’re hoping to increase our long form KZbin uploads going forward

[@FSUJD524]

Ok…that was wild 😳🤯

[@mrsprevost]

Such an awesome video! Well done! ✨⭐

[@officialinterstellarnews]

Thank you so much!

[@bhavinpatel257]

I would disagree with that notion that because the space is expanding faster than speed of light it is dark. Because this notion could not answer all other questions and would fall flat just like flat-Earth theory. The real reason space is dark, is because only Sun's (aka stars) generate light. Nothing else generates light. All Sun's combine don't even make 0.000001% of the area or volume in the universe. Thus all space regardless of motion is dark (because it doesn't generate light). These creates 3 scenarios. 1) When you look at any star, you are receiving that light directly. 2) When you look away from any star, you are traveling with light, but light has nothing to bounce off, thus you keep traveling with it, observing complete darkness. And 3) When that light bounce off something (planet, spaceship, moon, satellites, auroras, etc) you will see that object illuminate. My answer is 100% accurate and you can test it yourself by observing our own moon with naked eye, as well as our sun with naked eye.

[@officialinterstellarnews]

You basically just reiterated what I said in the video. All those things still leads to the same point, space can’t be filled with light because space is expanding.

[@bhavinpatel257]

@@officialinterstellarnews No. I did NOT say anything close to what you said. To clarify, you specifically said that "because universe is expanding" "faster" than "light can travel"... thus "light just never gets to you". What that implies in different example is like 2 fire trucks shooting water at each other, but they are both driving away at 100mph each in opposite direction, thus the gap is increasing at 200mph, and this the water would never reach each other. That is exactly what I debunked in your video. In fact, the universe expanding is still just a theory. It is NOT proven yet because we can't see the entire universe. We ONLY know "OBSERVABLE" universe (NOT entire universe). You can't be sure of anything if you can't see the whole thing. This is why the new JWST they launched is still finding unimaginable amount of galaxies that are NOT visible to other telescopes. Light will always get to you sooner or later. Light particles can not be eaten by dark particles. Speed of expansion or contraction of universe can not modify the light particles that are already traveling from point A to B. In other words, if you shoot a gun (bullet going at 300 mph), then you run at 500 mph... sure you can beat the bullet, but you can't modify the trajectory of the bullet. So bullet will reach its destination at 300mph (minus any normal drag from friction of wind and gravity). But you running next to it, isn't going to alter the bullets trajectory or destination. Same way, until light hits another object, it keeps on traveling (expansion or contraction will not speed it up or slow it down). Now read my initial response again and see what I'm saying...

[@bhavinpatel257]

@colinwilson6942 surprise!! Everything you said is totally incorrect. Sun can be looked at with naked eye (at Sunrise and Sunset) with no damage to eye. In fact this is very healthy because it will do magic to your body and soul. It will enlighten you and free you from disease and negativity. (Thanks to Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma) for this knowledge). You will also gain knowledge of cosmos that does not exist on Earth. Everything has a temperature, I bet you didn't know. Cold, freezing, warm, hot, boiling, they all are on a temperature scale. Only stars generate light. Planets don't. They can only reflect it. If you disagree then tell me one single planet or moon that generates light? Planets don't glow... accretion disc is made of material broken apart from friction, that's what glows... this is miracle of black hole which has more gravity than sun (light generator due to gravity)... thus a super-gravitator (aka super-sun, aka black hole) generates light by friction. How do you feel being 100% wrong and 100% knowledge-less? Please look at the Sun as I mentioned and enlighten yourself.

[@zzubra]

5:50 No, space is NOT expanding “exponentially faster” the further away you look. It’s expanding “linearly faster” the further away you look. The word “exponentially” has an actual meaning; it’s not a synonym for “surprisingly.”

[@kit2770]

I figured it would have something to do w the expansion of space. Makes sense. So, we are surrounded by starlight, but we just can't see it.

[@shahineali5858]

The real issue is lack of critical thinking. The other problem is lack of creative thinking. Then the question would be "Why don't we see all the light from a candle at once?. We know we can walk round it, even use a spiral staircase and observe the candle-flame all the way to the top. That means it's light is all over the room. But we can't see it. It's not the light not being there. Our eyes can only see the light that comes directly to the eye.

[@Mtnsunshine]

Fascinating. 👍 I did not know any of this about Edgar Allan Poe. Thank you. 🙏

[@galacticgiveaways7047]

That was great!! Nice job!

[@officialinterstellarnews]

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it!

[@harvlarv]

Hi

[@johnmichaels4330]

Like how you explaine that. Its simple enough for my kids to understand, and that is perfect. Thank you.

[@officialinterstellarnews]

As a parent, that makes me really happy! Thank you!

[@atlaskx3604]

So if our eyes were able to see light waves that were lower on the spectrum than visible light, would the universe appear white? Is red shift the only thing preventing it from being that way? I also think while there maybe be a lot of stars, there still aren’t enough stars for them to completely cover the night sky.

[@Robboa1]

That’s why the James Webb Space Telescope is built to observe infrared wavelengths.

[@newatlantisrepublic6844]

Yep. Exactly Thanks for watching!

[@seansimms6693]

The good thing is as humans… we have telescopes capable of detecting all wavelengths of the spectrum and the ability to convert energies be they radio, gamma, up whatever into visible light images.

[@Mike-uh2gw]

If you ever look through a very expensive set of night vision goggles you will see there are so many stars the entire sky is absolutely covered in their light. There are so many galaxies shining each with billions of stars it almost makes you dizzy. You have to be out in the country where it actually gets pitch black at night. It is humbling to see.

[@atlaskx3604]

@@Mike-uh2gw sounds nice

[@matreyia]

Why is space still black nearby close proximity to stars also? the sun doesn't light up the space between the earth and itself.

[@ciprianb4794]

Because you can't see light unless it hits something. You cant see a ray of light from a flashlight. You see what you point it at.

[@matreyia]

@@ciprianb4794 I figured, you don't see light in space because no air molecules reflect but you can see light from flash light because it refracts through the air itself.

[@Crisis941]

An even bigger question than this is "What is space expanding into?" If its expanding then that means there is something or perhaps nothing outside of space. Space is basically the universe itself in this sense and is intertwined with time and all the laws of physics, does that mean if you were outside of "space" that there would be no time and you would no longer be bound by the same rules?

[@Mummyfier87]

So if the universe expanding dilutes the light into longer wave lengths, does that mean that if we took a picture with camera that could see in those wave lengths, would we see the "light" all around us in space?

[@playgroundchooser]

Absolutely, look for an image of the Cosmic Microwave Background and you'll see picture of the entire sky filled up with roughly the same wavelength of microwaves. Freekin cool if you ask me! The guys that discovered it made the discovery by accident even 😂. It's a good story for sure.

[@SolidSiren]

Yes, and we do and have!

[@tahashina6557]

Yes that’s what the cosmic radiation background is

[@Plus9dB996]

2 hollow tubes that intersect in the middle, forming a cross. Shine a flashlight through one of the tubes. Look through the tube that intersects the one with the light. You will not see the light that is traveling right past your eye, in the first tube, because it has not hit anything yet.

[@AamerPawarymyye]

👍

[@playgroundchooser]

Absolutely Right. The Paradox just adds a second light in the tube that you are looking at and changes the question to "is it bright or not?"

[@robertotorres661]

Yo whats the music in the background it sounds amazing

[@StuMas]

You're right about being wrong. Space appears black because black is not a colour and therefore, cannot travel to your eyes. Black is the default background of our vision. Everywhere that appears black is actually in your visual cortex and not in the external world.

[@Profesah_411]

Is black “nothing”?

[@StuMas]

@@Profesah_411 Not exactly. It's more like the default black of a screen: Inactive pixels remain black.

[@everettwalker9141]

If the universe is expanding so rapidly then why isnt our part not expanding?

[@oscarsalah3714]

As simple as it can be "we are light beings meant to flow the love and understand what the light is within us." as much as you look as much as new universes created. its our duty to light up the positive side of human being.

[@Muscles_McGee]

And God said "Let there be darkness." Wow just imagine how history would've turned out if that was the first verse!

[@intellectually_lazy]

because when you go the maximum speed through space you experience no time, so light can't persist

[@Sailordude9980]

"Space can do whatever it wants" Brilliant 😊❤

[@officialinterstellarnews]

The fact that it can is both awesome and terrifying 🫣

[@MrEnjoivolcom1]

The universe is not obliged to exist/behave in a manner that we may understand.

[@7amianAkaDame]

How do we know black holes are actual holes, instead of a solid body like a very large, theoretical black dwarf star, like objects instead? Also, instead of the attractive force or gravity of the object, attracts matter so violently that it just seperates the particals/atoms itself, on the event horizon before just painting the surface and adding to the mass, and what ever cannot be, in personified means, digested is sent out in the quasars, or in easier terms, a backwords working star but instead of using the energy/destroying energy from the violent seperation of fundamental particals, it spits it back out the massive object rejects? Awesome video and channel, just got done watching 5 short vids and 3 longer videos, thank you for sturring up some interesting thoughts, got my scientific part of my brain doing a workout. By the way, in recent news articles they have a very detailed picture of a quazar and it seems to be ejecting matter in a double helix structure, would be awesome if someone could piece together a theory to support that everything in the universe was just more-or-less like a super massive cell like structure. Happy Thanksgiving anyone reading this!

[@jevan_07]

Love this video, you earned anew subscriber fr

[@officialinterstellarnews]

Appreciate that and appreciate you! 🙏🏻🚀

[@TahoeJones]

The experiment is simple. Go with a friend to an open field. One of you shine a flashlight. Can see pretty good huh? Walk away until its dark for you. Now look back at that lit up dot. Looks kinda like a star, but doesn't light up where you are. That's why space is black. Light simply fades over distance.

[@havenht]

You left out one important thing about the universe expanding. The distance between the stars in its galaxies are not expanding. It just the distance between galaxies that are expanding in every directions.

[@kingsqueen2180]

Amazing video my guy!!

[@cecilionembraceofnight486]

space is always created beautiful and terrifying things that science cannot answer them but our creator knows the design for this creation ❤❤❤ wonderful unuverse.

[@JJVater]

“We KNOW” immediately not scientific

[@mrstevo32100]

Not necessarily, there are things that are known.

[@Bemani-v9e]

The structure of your argument is flawed. This is a false dichotomy. There are countless things about the Big Bang theory that are completely true otherwise it wouldn't be called a theory. No one knows because our understanding of physics breaks down at the big bang and black holes.

[@Deleted11100]

@@mrstevo32100indeed, but do you honestly, seriously think puny humans like us, who only in the last 50 years have managed to capture what’s in our own solar system and had a glance out at space, that we are smart enough to think WE KNOW that there was a big bang or that space is not infinite? I think it’s so bold and almost egotistical of mankind to assume we know anything about the universe, especially at them lengths. We simply were not designed or intended to understand it.

[@mrstevo32100]

@Deleted11100 maybe us puny humans will never know those kind of things, but I was responding to the claim by the op that "we know" is not scientific, when some things are known because of science.

[@DeltaHouseStudios]

8 minutes could’ve been summed up a lot faster as visible light is a tiny fraction of the EM spectrum. Space is only perceived black in the visible spectrum, but would look very different if you could see the entire EM spectrum at once with the naked eye.

[@marcusc5239]

I agree with this video but, I feel they missed a major point. That is that, even if I hold a flash light and you are far away enough, you will eventually be unable to see the flash light. So perhaps it is because the other stars observable to us are simply too far away. Are we able to see to the entire spectrum of EM waves? If so, how do we know it is the entire spectrum? How do we know there’s no way to see waves that are seemingly stretched to invisibility? In this event you could argue that, the light will reach us no matter how stretched, but how will you know if it is beyond your perception, yet still is present. What limits our ability to observe stretched wave lengths of light? I believe that is the question we should be asking if it hasn’t been asked yet. Is there a limit to visual capacity? Are we as a species too ignorant to create a device capable of determining, with certainty, what that limit is?

[@Dovehkis]

_Space is an abyss with no end._ _Voyager signals but it doesn’t send._ _No reply from humanity’s messenger,_ _A star in space, lost forever._ _And although we hope for a reply back,_ _Little Voyager 1 will eventually fade to black._

[@harvlarv]

This is the best vid i have watched ❤❤❤😊

[@officialinterstellarnews]

Wow! That’s awesome! Thank you so much for watching 🙏🏻🚀

[@gaius_enceladus]

Great video! This is the best explanation for the darkness of space that I've seen!

[@ClassicJukeboxBand]

I can tell you why space is so dark...it's because there is not much light...

[@gurusheela6998]

Ok but why it's dark 🕶️🕶️ every where

[@Waterfront975]

But if light hits a particle like a planet, or dust in space, then that would also dim the light. For example the dust in the milky way hides and dims the stars behind it I have heard, so you cant see those stars, and they are not billions of light years away. The planets and dust will reflect the light in the opposite direction, away from the observer. There will be an equilibrium where each volume emits the same amount of light as it receives.

[@tahashina6557]

Slightly correct yeah, but light does not always reflect off the dust or planets or bodies it hits, instead it will get absorbed and turned into very very small or high amounts of heat, which we do also use to make deep space discoveries. J1407b is theorized through the dipping and dimming patterns of the star in the system actually, (also sadly it is now being theorized that the planet is not the super ring planet people once believed, but a forming planet that is being created from the debris and collision of two planets, which is still pretty cool)

[@br3nto]

0:34 Olber’s paradox doesn’t quite make sense if: the light gets blocked and remitted in undetectable wavelengths; and/or wavelength changes out of the detectable range the further it travels, even if no expansion takes place.

[@Scott-i9v2s]

Altogether this means (to me) that VISIBLE light being just a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum is not a significant factor in the universe being so dark--even factoring-in the CMB. Right/wrong?

[@dogge929]

Here's my uneducated answer to why the universe is so dark: There is dust in space. The farther away a star, the more dust gets in the way. More dust equals less light passing through, sort of like a dirty air filter passing less air to a vehicle's engine.

[@CountrySingerWannabe]

If we know that the universe is 13.7 billion years old we wouldn't have to keep telling people of its age. It is like saying 2+2=4. You don't have to convince anyone of that.

[@1yehny]

It’s black because of expanding space, causing elongation of light waves. Once it is elongated to infrared, you can’t see it anymore. Then of course, with the large distances between stars, there are few photons per volume of space reaching our eyes.

[@seanramsey94]

This must have been made pre JW telescope. Serious doubts have been cast on the big bang and expansion, not to mention the age of the universe.

[@ericdolby1622]

Ok but go into a dark basement, light a small candle or small led in the corner. Walk over to the other corner. Blackness around it and your body is not lit up or anything on the other side. We are too far away. Simple answer

[@inferno5902]

Your best video so far and zing and holy is the universe insane

[@officialinterstellarnews]

Thank you!

[@inferno5902]

@@officialinterstellarnews no problem

[@darkstar_-hi6wp]

Space really isn't that dark. It's how our cameras work to take photos and capture light that makes it look pitch black dark out there like a black void.

[@Johnsmith_92]

One of the best videos I have ever watched! Great job👏👏👏

[@officialinterstellarnews]

Wow! Thank you!

[@sprinkleddonuts6094]

The distance is too Vast for the Light to Travel… We ONLY think the Universe is 13.7billion years old. It is much older than that… cause usually when you “think” you know, you are usually wrong.

[@sazikanebaldimor2386]

I like the idea that light ages, and therefor with distance loses energy to the enviroment. Hence redshift, and the further away you get, the stronger the redshift.

[@tahashina6557]

Not just an idea but it is fact!

[@CoverBydAn]

6:42 you need an editor. “Not because light isnt there, but it’s because we cant see it” this isnt a very helpful sentence. It makes sense if you already understand it, it doesn’t otherwise.

[@dineshdixit3306]

A Theory is just an Argument that lives only until a Counter Argument arrives.

[@youtubersdigest]

Definitely worth the watch everyone who didn’t click the link missed out. Can’t believe how many people were crying over an 8 minute video🤦‍♂️

[@jsasaunders9732]

I am 65 years old and this has always been the counter argument to an infinite universe. However, I am still not convinced. The normal counter counter argument is that the universe is dirty and light gets absorbed by intermediate particles. The counter counter argument is that absorbed light would heat these particles and they in turn would either emit light or heat and that this would go on for infinite time and thus the universe would again be filled with light or heat. The counter counter counter argument is that what do we really know about light? Does it travel infinite distance unchanged or might it be affected by distance in some way? The same argument for an expanding universe may well be applied to slowing light or changes in light wavelength. This argument has be only lightly explored and may remain a possible resolution to the universe mortality. Naturally there would need to be means by which the universe renewed itself or it would eventually become filled with iron. That would be a topic for much greater research. Especially if the bulk of the universe is filled with voids and is not as crowded as that part we can "see".

[@ArianaTheDopest]

Really makes you feel small but big enough to in joy space ❤

[@Formula7Driver]

I just realized that I don't like the term "Infrared light". Light is the electromagnetic radiation that we can see. There should be no such thing as infrared light, it's infrared electromagnetic radiation

[@amad8257]

amazing video like always

[@officialinterstellarnews]

Thank you so much! 🙏🏻

[@velcroman11]

Space is dark because getting into space is so terrifying that we forget the open our eyes, right? 🤣

[@XxThecoolboy9Xx]

Nice vid

[@officialinterstellarnews]

Thank you so much!

[@LThill-ks2uz]

So is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light? Aren't there stars and galaxies traveling in our direction with us that we can see clearly? Why can't our eyes fill with light like the telescopes can?

[@newatlantisrepublic6844]

Our eyes haven’t evolved to behave like that. Thanks for watching!

[@fpostgate]

It does seem like a good reason perhaps that there is dark space when we observe the night sky. You have made me ponder a lot, suggesting the expansion of everything relation to the speed of light. Thanks...

[@johnnyx9659]

Excellent video. Thank you.

[@Muslim_Brother_A]

Space is a real masterpiece. For every masterpiece there is a master.

[@mbgrocott7115]

Add to the reason the fact that our eyes only see certain spectrums of light. Consider the dog. The dog doesn't see as we do. Or an insect. Insects of different kinds see differently. So do birds. Then also consider the point made about direct surface illumination. Since everything is moving in orbits and spinning, light is bent and there is very little of its various sources which make it to our eyes in anywhere near a direct line at any given moment. So in reality, there are many factors.

[@hampopper3150]

The other reason is that the light isn't always going into eyes as light can follow its own path.

[@Robboa1]

Is space actually expanding faster than light can travel (your explanation), or is the red shifting due to the Doppler Effect (which is a better explanation).

[@newatlantisrepublic6844]

It’s traveling faster

[@TheRealSolardisaster]

Not that I’m some notable physicist. I’m obsessed with learning all I can about physics, especially astrophysics - even with that, hearing Poe’s answer made a ridiculous amount of sense to me. I think learning this about Poe, just made me love him all the more. His works are responsible for my love of poetry and literature - and in that - I’ll always attribute my ability to manage psychosocial and emotional hurdles in life, to him. It really backs up the thought that high intelligence often accompanies depression -which seems to have skipped a generation with me 😂 but my messaged is stayed all the same

[@watgaz518]

So, does that mean that if the universe initially inflated/expanded ? and over time stopped and became static, the SOL from each star would have no where to travel, except back n forth? and so light up the dark universe like an illumination, preventing us from seeing all other celestials in the sky above us?

[@newatlantisrepublic6844]

Exactly. Thanks for watching!

[@Cutternationbsb]

Ok! Now im worried!! Should i be worried??

[@officialinterstellarnews]

Haha not at all

[@kylecarter1599]

This is like asking why an empty jar appears empty

[@OnlyTwoShoes]

This is not why the universe is dark. It's dark because a baseline is needed for contrast. Whether it's human eyes or sensory equipment, a baseline will always be chosen and zeroed out. Darkness is simply the zero point of observation, but that doesn't mean nothing is there, it just means not enough is there to warrant a baseline for that level of data collection. This is why as technology improves we are able to observe further distances through the cosmos.

[@scott6828]

Absolutely fascinating!!!

[@perrylaszki]

Black holes pulled apart space, and is expanding. Black pulled black apart. Darkness dose react to light. And also reacts when it is off. What is moving, and how dose everything have to do with gravity.

[@jopposity]

Wow epic video. "Space can do whatever it wants", awesome quote.

[@officialinterstellarnews]

Thank you so much for checking out the video! Hope you walked away with some extra knowledge

[@gwugluud]

This is the first time I've heard of Poe being a scientist, or dabbling in science well.

[@MukashfiNaiemAbdAllah]

Why I’ve never came across this amazing channel before ?

[@psdaengr911]

Accepting the expanding universe theory means that the assumption that the speed of light being a constant in space-time can only be resolved in one of two ways. Either, more space appearing from "nowhere" rather than the "fabric"of space stretching expanding (violating constant space-time), or The universe is much larger than the volume of the materials from the "Bang" AND forces exist that repels matter and attracts it besides gravity. Both forces would need to obey an inverse square distance influence on matter and be opposite in behavior. Either explanation requires that space have more than 3 "physical" dimensions plus time, but the second doesn't require something spontaneously appearing from "nowhere". A three dimensional physical analogy for the observed "expanding universe" would be a very tall hill with balls on top each having a weak magnetic charge, which were pushed apart by something which has less influence with distance. While close to the top the balls' fields would keep them close to the top and each other . As they moved outward and down the hill a second force that extends in "one direction" from "below" the hill would pull them downward and further apart and weaken their collective attraction. The balls would also gain momentum, making them move apart faster. The two forces would be like a white hole acting like a black hole would if observed with time moving backward, located within the mouth of a much larger black hole. Gravity would no longer be an asymmetric force, but a force which is symmetrical in a higher order dimension.

[@why-u-alive]

Please make caption in your video by typing..so it will be easy to recognise the word you are saying

[@carlmanis879]

In the big bang it matters what side your on it. if your at the 12:00 position and view something that was from the 6:00 position. It would look like it is moving away from you. But the truth is you are both moving away from each other. If you are moving north at 3/4 light speed and the other position moving south at 3/4 light speed so neither of you are going above light speed. But your speed moving apart from north and south would be 1.5 times the speed of light. Object at your 3:00 and 9:00 would appear slower.

[@kellyinfanger9192]

That's exactly what I was going to comment on. Well put, I would need to draw a picture. Therefore, it seems his statement that this demonstrates that the expansion is accelerating is not the logical conclusion, unless they have other evidence.

[@carlmanis879]

The second part of what you said is true. You can not accelerate with out adding energy. There is no sign of added energy. @@kellyinfanger9192

[@liamodell7191]

I also have a problem with the Expanding Universe considering that a good chunk of our visible universe is being sucked into the Great Attractor. So is our universe expanding or just fluid? We actually know nothing about our universe, and most likely will not for thousands of years. Yes,, kill me. I'm a logical heretic.

[@newatlantisrepublic6844]

Actually they’ve discovered that the universe is behaving more like a sink drain. Tyson wrote a paper on it a few days ago. Thanks for watching!

[@DocTraubo]

Astrophysicists _assume_ space is expanding because of the measured red shift. Standard candles and parallax distance measurements aren't greatly accurate tools anyway.

[@1108chuck]

Space is moving faster than the speed of light? Does that mean the planets and stars are also moving at this speed or is space moving past us? If we are moving with it faster than the speed of light and light from another source is racing towards us at the speed of light wouldn't this theoretically change the distances that we believe other known planets and stars to be?

[@newatlantisrepublic6844]

Nope. Remember space time is relative to the observer. Thanks for watching and stay tuned for more!

[@zadenwachter9918]

The rate of spacetime's expansion increases with distance. The red shift demonstrates that part. So objects relatively close to one another experience less of this effect, while objects relatively far from each other are no longer visible. Everything in between experiences predictably varying amounts of spacetime expansion, which we can gauge with the red shift effect to determine how fast spacetime is expanding between our point and the points we observe. The really cool idea presented by this is that of the observable universe, which is shaped like an ever-narrowing funnel from any given point of view.

[@southbronxny5727]

If red shift was right, why haven’t the stars at the furthest part of the universe, which we can see, red shifted? Their light reaches us directly without any shift from so far away.

[@newatlantisrepublic6844]

Because their light left billions of years ago when the local universe was a lot smaller, thus we can see it barely Thanks for watching!

[@zadenwachter9918]

We can't see everything in the universe because some of it has ridden the expanding fabric of spacetime too far/fast away from us for their light to ever reach us. The objects we can see had angular momentum relative to the big bang's point of origin closely aligned with our own, so they're basically traveling in the same general direction we are, and thus haven't moved out of our observable universe.

[@gristlevonraben]

if you seal a barn air tight, and light fast, 70*70ft, 4900 square feet, paint the walls white and put leds on 4ft poles standing on intersections 10 feet apart, you have a room with 49 connection points, but we are not putting lights on the walls, so we subtract four walls of 70f basically shrinking it all by 10, so 60*60ft, or 6*6 lights, 36 lights. now, let us experiment. we are going to put ourselves near the middle light. it will be our sun. our sun puts about 93 lumens of light for every square meter. thats 7 and a half candles of power who average 12.5 lumens per candle. if we stand about 3ft from our led on a pole, the led will give us 93 lumens if it puts out about 112 lumens at the bulb. lets make it a 100 even. please remember, these are not 100 watt light bulbs, those make 1600 lumens on average. no, we are using bulb strength similar to two bright nightblights, or three dim bulbs, basically, the light your car's yellow flasher makes at night, so these 100 lumen lights afe not very bright. but we dont want them to be, because we are trying to make a close comparison to star light, basing it on sun brightness from earth, the sun is close, so our led is close, and super bright, but distance would make it dim too. now let us stand next to our source, and look at the room. closer bulbs are brighter, farther bulbs are dimmer. this is because the light is like strings coming from a single knot. if you have thirty strings on a knot going in all directions, and you move toward it, how many strings will you touch at first? just a couple. you get closer to the knot web and you can start to feel more strings. finally, when you can grab the whole knot, you can percieve all the strings or most of them. this is the same for light beams coming from a light bulb. they call this principle the inverse square law, meaning, for every distance, you lose a double number of beams, strings, heat waves, excetera, or, as you approach, for every set distance you can feel more strings beams and heat radiation. for this experiment, it means the farther away our leds are, the less light beams we will have hitting our eyes, so they will look dimmer and dimmer. but, the argument proposed, is that there are so many stars and light lasts forever until absorbed, why isnt the night sky bright? its a good question. there are four main, if not only four variables. a, distance. at ten feet away, our leds light beams are spreading out, and only touching us with 10.7 lumens, barely brighter than a candle! isn't that crazy? so all the leds on poles in this big barn that are 20 feet away are giving us only 2.6 lumens. that's like the little light on your usb phone charger. at the next ring, or square of lights, at 30 feet in all directions, those leds are making 1.2 lumens. that's as faint as a star at night! Sirius, the brightest star, is about 0.000023529 lumens. if you gathered 8000 of the brightest stars into one point, but kept their didtsnces far away the same as they are, they would still be only as bright as venus is in the night sky, the evening star, still way way way below 1 lumen. a full moon is spread out light, but is basically 0.26 lumens. why does the moon seem brighter? its wide, more beams are hitting us, the ground, the air molecules, dust clouds, etc! but stars really far away are only touching our face with a few light beams. so shouldn't the inverse square law be enough to explain dark nights? no. the latest pictures of deep space show almost a wall of stars. but there are black ares, and that is the next factor, b. absorbtion. light is absorbed or reflected or abbsorbed and converted to a different wavelength, color, energy level. on earth, we have a lot of reflecting and conversion. in space, there is a lot of dust and anions and ions, and planetary dust and in large areas, it is so vast, that like a dust storm hiding the sun, these interstellar dust clouds hide stars. they absorbe all the beams that end up touching them until they are so full of energy that they actually glow, and those are called nebulas. our room, the white walls are made to reflect everything, so no conversion or absorbtion. so why is it still dim in here, and it will be so. this is factor c, wave cancellation. you ever wonder why the edges of things have black lines on them? maybe you haven't noticed because you have two working eyes, so you see two versions of your view and compile them into one smooth and round one in your brain? i was born blind in one eye. i see sharp edges. if you close one eye for a while, so will you. those sharp edges that look like black lines are caused by reflections! reflections that at corners and edges start mingling and crossing each other in patterns, and at that black line, the wave interference has cancelled out each other, leaving a void of blackness. you can see this odd cancellation when a lace curtain moves in front of the grid of a window screen. the light in our barn is criss crossing everywhere, and cancelling out quite a bit of the light from our view. so paradoxically, if the light bulbs are turned off in a completely reflective room, the light beams will bounce around until they meet other beams at the right angle and poof, cancel each other faster than social justice warrior can say, "You're racist," though they never met you before. in fact, lightvis so fast, that when you turn off the leds, the room will cancel itself instantly, something the marxist rebel left envys, and is working through ai social credit scoring to fix, asap! but before we reach that new elite's pseudo communist paradise of our enslavement, let's discuss what this video states, part d, light loses energy, well, physists in woke science church, really dont like saying that. they say it just becomes a wider light beam, or a redder color until its so dark red we can't see it with our eyes. in fact it becomes microwaves. end of story. ? no, you think light could become even wider, loosey goosey? what, like radio waves? maybe, sort of, but what if we view light as energy packets, then there is something light can turn into, just every day heat. its a tiny ball of heat, kind of weak, but, what if the quantum leapes that go up from red light to yellow to blue to violet in set distances of a leap, well what if it could be a smaller lower energy leap down, or fall? what if heat from friction is photon balls being shared and gathered from hot and bothered electrons that are just too small for us to see? that would certainly make E=MC squared more interesting, wouldn't it? it would explain why heat can generate electricity, or why electricity on a hot plate can make the other side cold, it would explain the leidenfrost effect, where, temperarily, a cold object will not absorbe heat from a super hot object when sandwiched together. like cold water droplets dancing on a hot skillet. perhaps the superhot material transfer of heat packets and vibrations are too big to fit the smaller colder heat packet vibrations, so it creates a wall that blocks the bigger packets until the cold ones swell and can intermingle between each other's electron fields? nah, the woke church of science has not approved of this heresy, so please ignore it. also, what could possibly weaken a light beam? yeah, once spread out because of the doppler effect explains red light, but microwaves? do we really have stars that move so fast that their doppler effect is popping popcorn? just kidding, the spreading out is gigantic that you'd have to be dangerously ly close to a star to pop popcorn. stars already make microwaves, and radiowaves, why haven'those filled the sky with popcorn popping potential? come close, look around for a siri or alexa, don't let them hear this, but, there might be a non sanctioned answer. they kind of know this already, calling it quantum fields, dark energy, tomorrow it might be called heisenburg jam, but the old timers, like me, and much earlier, who used to throw bolts of electricity with their hands (very true, ie Tesla), we called it aether.... you see aether doesn't fit the car crash model of current church doctrine. its frankly too small to measure or see, much like bacteria before we could see it with microscopes. aether would create a drag on anything moving through it, slowing it down, making it meander more, turning a healthy blue light into a nasty, crabby microwave that can't even pop popcorn anymore, well, you try dragging yourself through a foggy rainforest for a billion years and see how bright and shiny you are! the question is, why does the woke church of science, TWCOS, or twocs, as i like to call it, hate the aether so much? because maybe, like airplanes or jets use air by thickening it to fly with, maybe we could compress directed streams of aether to push planes, using electromagnetic pulsating pinching fields? the military is allowed to use it, we are not. but, hey, you didn't hear that from me.

[@iBen-ry6pj]

Why is the space between earth and sun not dark during the day? When sun illuminates the moon, we see the moon shining, but the space between the moon and the sun is dark.

[@richiknair9036]

The CMB is the footprint of the previous universes that have been created through multiple big bangs imo

[@dineshdixit3306]

With over 10 billion streetlights, earth should not have any dark place.. wow..

[@thomasmount3530]

If the expansion of space is not restricted by lightspeed, why do gravity waves propagate at the speed of light? I don't get it.