The Universe is Not Expanding - The End of Modern Cosmology

In this video, I ramble about my ideas regarding the proposed expansion of the Universe. The newest piece of evidence comes in the form of a giant arc-shaped structure that stretches 3 billion light years across the universe.
These giant structures should not exist according to lambda cosmology. The implication is that cosmologists have misinterpreted gravitational boundaries and underestimated gravitational redshift in the process.
paypal.me/staticuniverse

[@letsuseCommonsense]

Dark energy and dark matter will be the dark time in science in a few 100 years. I'm not a professional in this field but common sense says they made this up to explain what they see. Space is so vast we dont really know what's going on.

[@matthewatwood207]

Loving your channel so far. Not enough people are willing to question the narratives, especially when that's supposedly their job.

[@robrose4694]

Web images proving you right!!!!!! How does it feel my friend?

[@beardedroofer]

Why is it so hard for the scientific community to utter the words, "We honestly don't know"?

[@michaeldodd3563]

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools….who worshiped the creature more than the Creator. Rom. 1:22-25. To answer your query, it’s likely that the creation, and the methods by which we analyze it, have become god to the scientific community.

[@johnschroeder6216]

Unfortunately, you only are considering half of the story. While light red shifted leaving the source star, galaxy, local cluster, and mean mass density of space behind it, the light is similarly blue shifted by our star, galaxy, local cluster, and mean density of space ahead of it. There is no NET red/blue shift due to long distance gravitational effect for all the reasons you sighted. It’s just they are the same reasons that they virtually cancel out.

[@robheusd]

Yeah, that was also my observation from this "theory". And, at sufficiently large distance scales (scales at which the universe is pretty homogeneous) you can simply ignore the gravitational influence from outside, as you could reduce that tto a spherical shell with uniform density, and inside such a shell gravitational influence of that shell cancels out.

[@dexter8705]

You do realise that if light is redshifted once leaving a black hole then it's not purely Doppler shift but the photon itself is being stretched! Spaghettified which is what gravity does.

[@skyking6989]

Not sure how everything came to be but as more and more time goes on the more its looking like the big bang never happened

[@stevelux9854]

The universe may be expanding, but just relativistic to our perception. What if instead >we< are shrinking? It could simply be that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is correct. We are all slowly going from a higher energy state to a lower energy state. As this energy state is slowly influenced by entropy the atomic structure "shrinks" as the fields weakens. As we and all other matter slowly shrink it appears that distances are expanding.

[@joeljelliff2901]

Yeah that is almost an immediate thought. We must be shrinking! I thought that as well.

[@e7ebr0w]

Technically, the two should be interchangeable, growing and shrinking. only things I'd interject with, expanding and contracting are interchangeable, not necessarily expanding and shrinking

[@stevelux9854]

@@e7ebr0w Possibly, but a shrinking universe implies no need for "dark energy, and fits with our already known 2nd law of thermodynamics. I'm not a fan of making things more complicated than then need to be. But then; dark energy is where the money is.

[@JungleJargon]

The distant galaxies are *not* expanding away from us. An infinitely expanding universe is utterly nonsensical. It’s the *distance* between us and distant galaxies that is expanded (not “expanding”) from the effect of general relativity from the lack of matter and mass between us and distant objects. Dark energy isn’t needed to explain the red shift because the lack of matter in outer space explains the expansion of distance between the enormous gravitational wells of very large masses of super massive black holes. Time also speeds up where there is less matter so there is no need for dark matter to explain the faster movement of the outer spiral arms of galaxies. The problem is that they are not taking into account simple general relativity. They aren’t considering the variable rate of time and the differing measures of distance due to the amount of matter in the vicinity. Einstein burned into peoples minds that the speed of light doesn’t change. The units of measurement to measure the speed of light do change over large distances and galaxies cover large distances. That means that the speed of light does change over large distances as observed by us. The speed of light doesn’t change. The rate of time changes and the measure of distance changes… *which effectively changes the speed of light as we observe it over great distances.* Time runs faster in outer space where there is no matter and much less gravity. This is the reason the outer spiral arms of the galaxies move much faster than expected. It’s because events take place at a faster rate the less mass and gravity there is. Distance is expanded in outer space (not expanding). Plasma jets do not stream out five times the speed of light since the distance is expanded away from gravity wells. If the distance within a galaxy affects the rate of time and the measure distance that much, *just think what happens to time and distance in deep outer space where there is no matter in our line of sight!* The distances between us and the galaxies that we see are extreme! Time doesn’t run at the same rate everywhere in the universe. Time runs faster in outer space. It just dawned on me the other day that a thousand years and a single day happen at the same time in different places throughout the universe. It's simple (observed) general relativity. Time slows down and distance is contracted because of gravity where there is massive amounts of matter. Conversely, time speeds up and distance is greatly expanded where there is no matter in vast expanses of outer space. This eliminates the need for dark matter since time is sped up in the outer spiral arms of a galaxy where there is not nearly as much matter. It eliminates the need for dark energy in outer space where distance is expanded where there is no matter. So the result of general relativity is that billions of years pass by in outer space (13 some billion years) at the same time as thousands of years pass by where we are inside of the Milky Way galaxy. ...! Billion of years and mere thousands of years are the same thing *at the same time* in deep outer space and where we are, according to physics and according to relativity. In review, time slows down where we are. Time speeds up with less gravity so the outer spiral arms of galaxies move faster. There is no need for dark matter. Distance increases where there is no matter in outer space. There is no need for dark energy to expand space since the expansion of space is from not having any matter far away from the galaxies. Deep time (billions of years) and thousands of years exist simultaneously in this universe where there is no single rate of time or measure of distance! Just think what could be the reality *when* the photons register with our eyes or our cameras/detectors and there is a collapse of the wave function as seen or detected by us within our dilated time and distance. (Our rate of time is not the universal rate of time, especially for photons.) Conclusion: The time it took for Creation and since Creation in the Bible is absolutely true! Time itself is a (real) fabrication. Only your Creator can perfectly cover for you Himself and remake you again from the inside out by the power of His true word as

[@ChrisLehtoF16]

Amazing stuff thanks. 🙏

[@DavidCastro-pj1fd]

Good morning, you are missing the importance of plasma in the general structure of the universe. Please, try to get more info about it. Cheers!..

[@jray1429]

Do you have any thoughts on Einsteins thoughts on the variable speed of light❓ VSL can explain some profound things. Unzicker has some great thoughts on how cosmology, etc have gone off course. He also has thoughts on why there may not be things like dark energy or dark matter. Lookup Unzicker Real Physics

[@philoso377]

Nice narrative and presentation. Thanks.

[@joeljelliff2901]

Yo Chris! Big big big big congratulations! I have thought for 30 years now that the universe can not be expanding. It is a static system. An infinite static structure. What is considered red shift is not evidence of movement, or expansion, or big bang, rather something is happening to light, which is photons, as it travels through space, which is actually time. So photons themselves are accelerating. Most likely due to gravitational force. So if all objects in the visible universe are accelerating away from us at the same rate, perhaps the photons from them are all accelerating towards us at the same rate because of our constant gravitational field.

[@bryanbradley6871]

Wouldn't light be going slower to explain the longer time light would take from oneside of the universe to the other?

[@philjamieson5572]

joel jelliff: I think you could be right.

[@Gili0]

No proof, no theory. Next!

[@joeljelliff2901]

@@bryanbradley6871 acceleration as a term can either be increasing or decreasing. However they would remain relative to position of observable conditions. Basically an elongated wavelength will produce a red shift. If light where was compressing its wave length as it approaches your view point, then a blue shift would occur. So does that mean that it is increasing or decreasing in velocity?

[@bryanbradley6871]

@@joeljelliff2901 deceleration describes an object losing speed

[@philoso377]

Gravitational red shift is defined as variable c in proportion to g field strength gfs. Intermediate path from a galaxy to solar system carries a mean, normalized, gfs. Redshift signal originated from a galaxy will be normalized back to no or negligible redshift at the intermediate space approaching at our telescope. Am I reading this channel right?

[@annettelupau9759]

I agree with you. As for "Space is not empty" you are correct, It is made of Higgs Bosons. This causes the greater red shift the further away the light is coming from. The Bosons cause a refraction as the light passes through it. In my opinion that is.

[@superdave54811]

Don't forget all the gasses, dust and every bit of matter or mass that exerts a gravitational force upon photons. The farther light travels, the more it has to interact with.

[@philjamieson5572]

Annette LuPaul: That's a reasonable explanation, and, who knows; you may well be right. If it turns out that you've solved it, I want to be credited as someone who agreed with your theory.

[@handledav]

@@philjamieson5572 no

[@alancham4]

But there aren’t a bunch of bosons representing the Higgs field floating around. They have to use high energies to get a boson out of it and then they can’t even detect it directly because it last so short a period of time.

[@havenbastion]

Aether is thinning as matter coagulates due to gravity, causing the red shift typically taken as expansion.

[@theFLCLguy]

I think the vacuum energy is the gravitational waves from the entire universe like a cosmic sea. Dark matter is areas that the gravitational waves are being amplified and dark energy is where it's cancelling out. Super massive black holes are where the waves are at it's highest. I remember watching a video on redshift anomalies where you could see stars interacting with other stars and gases with a different redshift impling they are too far apart to be interacting. One last thing I think the issue is we are simplifying dimensionality and it's interfering with results. By reducing everything down to three spacial dimensions and a half for time we only get a rough and blurry perspective on reality. I think the number of dimensions is equal to the possible non-intersecting directions away from the object. Following inverse square law. The reason things at quantum level seem to bounce around randomly is they are in dimensions our math isn't sensitive or accurate enough to see the dimensions. And for multiple objects the number of dimensions is equal to the possible non-intersecting directions between the objects. This is what makes it appear like there's only three spacial dimensions. Everything is a wave moving around a single thing that has nearly infinite number of dimensions. Time is the direction the wave is moving.

[@havenbastion]

Aether (as the substrate of matter, which is an energy eddy) is thinning as matter coagulates due to gravity, causing the red shift typically taken as expansion. There are three physical dimensions; time, space, and scale. The three spacial dimensions are just a coordinate system, not metaphysically real.

[@joeljelliff2901]

So the conclusion that the universe is expanding due to the observed red shift, is a rookie mistake!

[@optimumcollege]

Keep a critical mind! It's much appreciated! 👍

[@brendawilliams8062]

It’s just wonderful to see others working on the problems. You have to live math.

[@optimumcollege]

@@brendawilliams8062 I have reached out to Chris Brown to podcast and I have never gotten a response from him... I have 80k+ followers across all social media and think it would be good for more people to hear his theory...

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@optimumcollege I am not seriously engaged in the deep questions in this debate.

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@optimumcollege optimum, I live and consider numbers. Philosophy points different avenues to numbers. If you can’t crunch the numbers then open problems remain. I am no expert In many and multiple areas. Good vid. Thankyou

[@hotsauce153]

What are your thoughts on the aether? I think it's responsible for light speed(being not instantaneous).

[@BestCosmologist]

Personally, I think it's all the same substance. You can call it mass, energy, space, gravity, time, or the aether. It's really just semantics. As far as light speed is concerned, I toyed around with the gravitational constant and bulk modulus equations to see if I can figure out why c is 299,792,458 m/s. I wasn't able to make sense of it.

[@m.c.4674]

@@BestCosmologist They are not the same thing , the aether is matter , while spacetime is not material. This single difference changes everything . For eg planet , stars and galaxies experience drag in space (very small drag due to the low density of the aether) . This can also affect technological advancements . For eg the aether can be used for space travel , in the same way as planes.

[@havenbastion]

That's a metaphysical truth you've come to. Change itself, ie Actuality, Chaos, or Aether, is the universal substrate of material reality just as experience is the universal substrate of metaphorical reality. Matter only exists at a certain scale where energy becomes tangled up with itself. Energy is change that occurs in waves. What's below that is just change, until we find enough particulars about how it works to differentiate it and give it a name. Also, that Aether is thickening makes every bit as much sense as expansion/big bang without counterintuitive/illogical predictions.

[@dexter8705]

It is space in more of a superfluid form. Matter gets its energy from it but it also propagates through it.

[@matthewatwood207]

@@BestCosmologist your comment/video reminds me of a thought I had earlier. If some bugs are so small that they swim through the air and solids move like liquids over long stretches of time, perhaps the fundamental difference between states of matter are scale and density. I.e. just as galaxies look like high-energy particles on a simulation running millions of years per second, photons and electrons could seem like--or straight up be--solid objects if you're fast and small enough.

[@paradox5389]

Thanks for sharing. Only one thing triggers me, is that redshit is due to gravity, it is not true. Galaxies moving away from us seems for us red shifted. It is basics. But there are some that moving towards us. So the structures are like streams of matter. Streems accelerating as the they move closer to the point of attraction. Points of attraction are also moving, this is how the streams are forming. "Empty spaces" have very disperse mass so it is harder for matter in those spaces to be attracted to something.

[@havenbastion]

trying this on for size; gravity isn't an attractive force, it's a collection of the energy from smaller physical scales into little entangled packets called matter. energy and matter that happen to come nearby are more likely to stick around by becoming entangled. the net result looks like attraction.

[@rkreike]

Q: If there is a redshift of light in the universe because of distance, then galaxies that move away with constant velocity seem to move away with accelleration. If so, the bigbang-theory is possibly wrong?

[@havenbastion]

Red shift can be explained in other ways. The Aether in-between things is thickening, for instance.

[@dexter8705]

You said acceleration, you know what accelerates? Drop something.. gravity accelerates and more gravitational field you pass through the more light is redshifted! P.s gravitational field exists throughout the entire universe.

[@IkeReviews]

I wonder if you have watched Eric Lerner's the real crisis in cosmology

[@BestCosmologist]

Of course. :D

[@sebastiantum12]

I’m working right now on my cosmology thesis and i can say that the equtions make no sense for a lot of reasons. I’m working in the frame of the standard model because even if it’s full of problems, at least it makes sense! I’m watching this to find alternatives bat this video says nothing really. If you want to build a new cosmological model you better know really really well the standard one to spot it’s weakneses and strenghts.

[@mikegarwood8680]

The real problem is that people are ignoring the holes in Lambda-CDM, because the alternative means ditching the boondoggle of "dark energy", and dark energy is "needed" to assist in the (wet dream) end-state of particle physicists--"quantum gravity". Tell us about the alternative, "Inhomogeneous Cosmology".

[@nadahere]

🤜⚡💥⚡🤛 Most lamestream scientists and followers don't understand the problems inherent in the BigDung theory. To wit, an expanding Universe entails matter and space-time [sic] would have to expand, which, per the mass-equivalence principle [E-mc^2], are made of energy. This would either require energy to be continuously created, or the 1st law of thermodynamics [conservation of energy] is invalid, or their density is decreasing. Either way all physical laws and the associated constants would have to have been constantly changing over the life span of the Uni which implies that all atoms and molecules would have been destroyed long time ago, ergo no Uni. The EM spectrum of the past [from distant objects] would be seen today as radically different. Even a slight change in the current constants would undo the present order/equilibrium. By all accounts the Uni would have radically changed over the presumed 13+ billion years, if not have been totally destroyed. The BigDung theory does not take this into account. Clearly the theory is false. 🤜⚡💥⚡🤛 === Yes, presumably there is an interplay tween matter and the fabric of space-time but only because they are intertwined. This principle is arrived from the energy equivalence equation when it is solved for the time component. By Onerock's core definition, space and time are interchangeable. But that's only on the word of that ol' mathamagician [that's not a complement]. By my tone you might have guessed that I'm not a a fan of that theory. IMHO, Plasma Cosmology [Electric Universe theory] predicts and describes the Uni more completely and eloquently. See the Thunderbolts Project channel. Also 'See The Pattern', 'Unzicker's Real Physics', Ray Flemming's[this] and Prof. Pierre-Marie Robitaille's 'Sky Scholar' channels... to start. As a consequence you too will find the current sciences distasteful. Naturally I don't recommend the 'conventional' physics sources as they are on the wrong path. Me, I'm only a triple engineer rewriting the electromagnetic theory which, as you know, touches everything else. I call it the Parallax Electric Theory [PET] which dispenses with the anachronistic notion of magnetism. Everything is but charges [electric fields]. The mike is yours. PS. From where I stand, the Uni is flat, static, eternal and 'c' is just a number [do you know what that means?][hint, add it all up]. [It means that 'c' is not the maximal speed in the Uni... because Onerock is dead )) ]

[@kevconn441]

If the universe is not expanding that means we live in a very special place in it. The cosmological principle, and Copernicus, says we don't. I tend to think that we don't, but I might be wrong.

[@enigmag9538]

Physicists and cosmologists and the like do not say that space is empty. Nothing is something and a vacuum still has particles popping in and out of existence. Most of your bullet points are widely accepted already. The only thing in question, mostly, is if the universe is expanding.

[@havenbastion]

Aether is thinning as matter coagulates due to gravity, causing the red shift typically taken as expansion.

[@emmettedavidson7055]

FYI, here’s where John Moffat talks about a “special acceleration” of order E-10 m/s², which he’s apparently playing with in his modified gravity TOE: kzbin.info/www/bejne/lafKhnd6q7WrfMU

[@sistajoseph]

This is good, many of these ideas are found in : A Short Treatise on the Space-Time Continuum by Piankh. There is a miss understanding at the very bottom of physics.

[@havenbastion]

The very bottom of physics is a fight over metaphors to explain the data.

[@davidrandell2224]

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “,Mark McCutcheon for facts.

[@rogerscottcathey]

Im not sure what people conceive when they hear the words "expanding universe". As far as solar systems and galaxies are concerned, there is conceivable the process of growth. Within our own solar system, Jupiter and Saturn are close to being duns themselves. B.T. Spalding recorded a model of planetary birthing from within the sun, with each planet being formed, one by one, each taking on further flung orbits as new planets are popped out. The model he described deemed Neptune as the oldest planet, and that eventually it will fly off into a much further orbit and go nova, becoming a sun. Dual sun systems are more numerous than such as ours presently is. This model suggests our own sun was once a planet orbiting another. The old concept of Vulcan, a planet inside the orbit of Mercury might have some probity, as a future event, though Spalding's model suggested there was already a plasma sphere there, and when a new anet is born, all the other planets will be displaced outwardly. Thus there are nine planets extant in his theory . . . Earth was the sixth planet born of our star, Venus seventh, Mercury eighth, and "Vulcan" the ninth. Spalding posited that our system can only accomodate 9. Hence why Neptune will move off to start its own family of planets. At any rate, this process if multiplied billions and trillions of times would suggest that while the metric of space is constant, systems grow, the population expands. The theory at least reflects how all things grow.

[@JungleJargon]

Black holes are growing in size without absorbing mass because they absorb space time.

[@myjamtheblues]

Where are the debunkers? Can’t any modern cosmologists debunk this? I’d love to see them try.

[@frun]

@@jonmiller4361 Yes it does. There is an alternative theory that is as good, i don't remember the name though.

[@frun]

@@jonmiller4361 No, some different. I like interpenetration of gravity as a thermodynamic/hydrodynamic limit, an emergent description.

[@frun]

@@jonmiller4361Scale invariance? I'm not quite sure i understand you. I am aware of the CCC, conformal invariance, the closely related concept. There is also Nottale's scale relativity. Fractal spacetime theories.

[@frun]

@@jonmiller4361 Never heard of it. I like scale invariance, but i prefer models involving self-similarity. I think de Broglie's double solution theory points to the fact, that the universe is some fractal. Probably self-similar network(causal set).

[@sortehuse]

The Universe is expanding, but there might not be evidence that the expansion is accelerating.

[@treyt6474]

The universe is expanding in theory. Amazing how were more certain about something derived from very limited static observations yet still question things that happen on our planet.

[@sortehuse]

@@treyt6474 It easier to see the the night sky than the bottom of the ocean. We know that all the far away galaxies are moving away from us because we can see that the light from the galaxies are redshifted. Every student taking a basic astronomy class has probably done the calculation and everyone with good enough telescope can go out and observe it tonight if they want to.

[@treyt6474]

@@sortehuse I understand the concept. And ive tried on multiple occasions to find out why the ONLY explanaton for red shift is expanding space. Its almost like they had the Big Bang theory, then tried to fit the red shift into the theory, instead of looking at red shift individually, which is bad science. Like this guy says, a different gravity profile can explain the red shift and is much more simple. Why are scientists not looking into other theories and just accepting the Big Bang as fact?

[@sortehuse]

@@treyt6474 Sorry, the guy in the video have misunderstood the implications of a different gravity profile. What there might be a lag of evidence for is Dark Energy not the Big Bang. Still a HUGE thing!

[@treyt6474]

@@sortehuse Why would it only apply to the universe accelerating and not expanding in general? Do you know any other convincing evidence of the Big Bang?

[@egggmann2000]

Without red shift, how can you triangulate? How do we know the stars are really that far away? I used to teach English to PhD students so they could teach undergraduate courses. Whenever I had astrophysicists, it shocked me how much empirical evidence there is not for any of their theories. I would always say, nice equations, but how do you prove any of it… their answer was always red shift, but when they explained it, it obviously had holes and none of them really seemed to understand the basis of their own field.

[@havenbastion]

Aether is thinning as matter coagulates due to gravity, causing the red shift typically taken as expansion.

[@John-gq7vt]

I really miss modern cosmology since being ended by people who don't know anything about it a year ago. Not so long ago another youtuber clearly explained why NASA's Mars helicopter was a joke and could never work.

[@havenbastion]

I don't know the physics of it but i know the metaphysics of it and i'm pretty sure we're on the same page. Collab?

[@joeljelliff2901]

You are correct. You are the only source offering this explanation. I think you are on the edge of having a critical thesis! I agree with your opinions. Go further. Go back through it. You are almost there.

[@robrose4694]

Thanks God, can you also answer my last prayer please???

[@Darkblade2121995]

I have been looking into astrophysics for a year now and it always bothered me that universe is accelerating in the expansion. This contradicts Big Bang theory which states universe slowed down after initial rapid expansion as gravity was the first force that separated from the rest of the forces. Now they say universe is picking up speed from nowhere and expanding so fast that "new space-time" is created at he rate faster then the speed of light. Also no expansion is detected on galaxy cluster scale which is explained with gravity being stronger then the expanding space-time. The only strong evidence of expanding space-time is the redshift but they interpreted it in the way it fitted into expanding universe story. Your hypothesis that gravity caused redshift is sound. We know that gravity affects light as it can bend its trajectory. Also as all forces in the universe gravity law is an inverse square law meaning farther you go less of an affect it has on you but it also means its effect never stops. All objects in the universe affect all of the other objects in the universe with gravity. If you imagine two objects in empty space being pushed of each other surface so they fly apart in opposite directions you will see that they slow down as gravity is draining away their kinetic energy. Over the large distance all of the kinetic energy would be concerted to potential energy and then reversed into kinetic energy in the direction that objects came from and they would start moving towards each other. Well, the light is a wave that travels with a constant speed in vacuum. It "cant" change its speed but it can loose energy as two objects did in the previous story. Energy loss would manifest as an increase in wave-length aka red-shift. Thank you for your videos. Please make more of them.

[@havenbastion]

consider: Aether is thinning as matter coagulates due to gravity, causing the red shift typically taken as expansion.

[@ctrant5927]

"I would never consider myself an expert, but..." Before expounding on your opinions, maybe you should become informed.

[@robrose4694]

How can you say that with out pointing out where he is flawed or uninformed? Really?

[@havenbastion]

The people who call themselves exists don't necessarily know or understand more. Also, an expert is someone who has fully mapped the edges of their field. Not being an expert doesn't mean you aren't qualified to speak to anything in the field, it just means you're not sure if you're accounting for everything relevant.

[@SeyedMohammadMostafaviDialecti]

As Philosophy researcher, I am rewriting Anthology and Cosmology of Parmenides and Leibniz that 20 century after parmenides tryed upgrades his Anthology an but Theire Philosophy must looked at them like the Motos systems then bring the Notions to The Logos. Einstein after many Dialectic with Philosophers of science ,said Universe is parmenidesan 4D universe. Parmenides cosmology : First : He proves Nothingness or Nothing or Exnihilo are impossible to Exist. 1 . Universe has no empty space, it all filled up with matter and Energy. Its Fully filled. 2. Universe has no beginning or End. 3.UNIVERSE is close system. And changes inside system doesn't changes The whole system. It has Spherical geometric. These are just was ground work for a Leibniz that in Math and Logic and philosophy is Famous. interestingly he starts his Books of Logic with Notion of The Anthology Called true Atom and he is Redefine whole Atomistic system different and redifne all Notions in cosmology even our understanding of matter will changes, Extension? Intentions? New view of Dimensions? Quantities or Qualities? universe as whole organic Entety that doesn't everything work separately in this universe. But its A organic whole .its Alive. Most of scientists illusion will shattered in Leibniz Logic. Big bang scientists us shamelessly forge data and Even The word Quantum is wrong. Nothig is quantifier specially Time .

[@Humanzooboywiyhstupifaliens1]

I like that noticed government and companies are basically super a i

[@lmp2motivation]

You are really talented my friend 🤗 you have my full support 😁 thank you for sharing this amazing video👌👌✨✨

[@robheusd]

If you are inside a spherical shell of mass, mass distributed evenly over the shell, the nett force of gravity is zero. I don't think you realize that.

[@havenbastion]

Gravitational boundaries are Not arbitrary - they're contingent.

[@philoso377]

Page 26:11 gravitational redshift is a mistake. Light bends passing in and out sun’s boundary should be taken in this order, from vacuum into g field = blue shift and from g field back to vacuum = red shift, for net zero shift. The only effect we can take out from this is bending of light and no redshift.

[@glenwaldrop8166]

That requires the two gravitational fields and the "empty" space to be roughly the same. Obviously this isn't the case. We haven't yet found another solar system like our own. Betelgeuse vs Sol, the gravity of each star is massively different. According to relativity space itself would be more compressed near Betelgeuse.

[@troyjason3426]

Good video Chris. Your video show that you're not a "yes-man". Independent thinkers like yourself have changed the world of science. However, not everything you said is correct, but not everything that Einstein "said or says is right". So, you're in good company.

[@boriskaragiannis]

you know this channel? "See the Pattern"

[@newbiex11]

I think not exist such thing as a particle it's energy fields

[@classicalmechanic8914]

You are right that universe is not expanding. But your explanation why it is not expanding is just wrong and your calculations are only approximations.

[@Smashy360]

Are you from Georgia? You have a distinct Georgia accent.

[@Smashy360]

LOL about 12:00 I just heard you say you were from northern Georia! One Georgia boy knows another. I'm from southern Georia. Anyway, good videos. I've thought a lot about this stuff myself. One thing I'd say though is the concept of "space" as the empty contain for stuff, is still useful and should not be done away with. I'd agree there is "stuff" (fields) in the space, but the space itself should still be considered to exist.

[@Smashy360]

I'm really very interested in this theory and would enjoy talking with you more about it. It's as valid as the "many worlds" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, for instance.

[@BestCosmologist]

Yup. Lol.

[@BestCosmologist]

@@Smashy360 I'm game for that, especially if you're willing to publish it. I would make more videos if I had someone to talk to. We can talk about anything. email me - [e-mail]

[@ramborambo2072]

no one knows ,no ones expert, whats far out there, behind the last beam of light or whatever

[@havenbastion]

there is no last beam of light. light is an expression of Change, which is infinite in all directions, at all scales, forever

[@egggmann2000]

I think the old theory of ether will turn out to be correct in the long run

[@Godakuri]

It was already proved wrong tho. What do you mean

[@brendawilliams8062]

People will say that and often love the golden ratio with it.

[@havenbastion]

Aether is thinning as matter coagulates due to gravity, causing the red shift typically taken as expansion.

[@havenbastion]

@@Godakuri Specific versions of Aether that made certain metaphysical assumptions were disproven.

[@Humanzooboywiyhstupifaliens1]

They want you to show the math because the brakes down after some point then you infinity symbols and what not but that’s not saying much Quantum computers that there making is technically what the brain can do and better

[@alancham4]

I think you blew your own mind contemplating how all boundaries are arbitrary and it made you a scientific contrarian. You keep talking about gravity being emitted and received and it’s not a force, but a condition of space time. I do think we’ll have to give up the Big Bang idea… a cyclical universe is seeming more likely.

[@havenbastion]

boiling makes more sense than cyclical

[@brendawilliams8062]

I believe you can think a lot of things, but it takes a proof that’s irrefutable. I believe if you don’t aim there then you’ll be just enjoying your own work. It is not easy to find or we all and I mean all would know.

[@matthewatwood207]

Ignorance is possibly inescapable, just like imperfection. They're goals we benefit from seeking but can never truly reach, only get ever closer toward. And if the world is truly infinite--in any direction, space, time, or scale, it seems more likely that absolute knowledge of anything is impossible, especially if time in infinite, space is infinite, and "fundamental" particles end up being infinitely dividable. It would result in a complexity so profound that absolute understanding is absolutely impossible.

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@matthewatwood207 With so much being infinite then the symmetry is the finite. Enjoy your work and enjoy, enjoy.

[@matthewatwood207]

@@brendawilliams8062 it is, so? This ad hominem isn't convincing.

[@Albiee0]

I love you Chris brown ❤❤❤❤

[@atticuswalker8970]

i recon the universe is governed by the rules at its birth. its all the same mass . moving as mass does. bending the now as it goes. taking its time with it as it grows. leaving nothing behind. but fast time . when it goes towards slow time where liggt goes the same speed . but slower.

[@pedroandrade4344]

1) is this “theory” of yours actually based on any facts? In other words, is it based on actual measurements of the mass of the universe? If not it is just another post-truth theory. 2) why did you choose gravity as an explanation? Couldn’t it also be that light is moving at different speeds on long universe distances? For example, like if we were leaving an white hole, which also causes red shiff? Time moving different at different parts of the universe (closer to the white hole, or “big bang”) couldn’t change the speed of light itself?

[@ChikenThursday]

I lasted about 37 seconds and turned down the incessant drone of chris brown I skipped ahead to see if this cadence continues and yes it does but later on he actually started to sound real confused/ I would have viewed it all but I am already way smarter than this guy so at the risk of ....

[@dilbert666]

Dunning-Kruger at it's finest.

[@Lincoln_Bio]

KZbin commenting at its finest

[@rohitkale6380]

Questioning a pre-existing belief is not Dunning Kruger effect. He keeps saying I don't know. I may be wrong. I am not an expert. Dunning Kruger is overestimating one's own knowledge, assume that I know enough and thus assuming what I believe is the truth and no other truth is possible or no debate is needed, that every other person opposing me is a fool.

[@seditt5146]

@@rohitkale6380 He makes a ton of claims and states he can convince everyone blah blah.... attempting to lampshade means nothing and he is still a pure example of D-K effect

[@treyt6474]

You would have a point, if he wasnt on to something. Have you not seen the new observations challenging the standard model?

[@rolandmetcalf4253]

The universe is expanding but darkness is faster than the light ? 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

[@romekin]

get your self a mic!

[@YawnGod]

Hey, bro. As long as you don't believe in God, continue going down that path. Modern science is a religion. As the most atheistic person on this planet (fucking low-bar claim, I know), the atheist in me sees how science is a religion. Science has psalms, hymns, chants, and all that jazz. Focus on math. I might be a Platonist now.

[@jacobvandijk6525]

You are watching KZbin thanks to science. Nothing religious about it. It becomes religious when they try to explain things like the beginning of the universe or the most fundamental particle. Why? Because it's all indirect observation. In the end nobody can prove anything.

[@alancham4]

Science is not a religion. End of reply.

[@havenbastion]

That's an incorrect understanding of religion. The most important distinguishing feature of all religions is an adherence to dogma, an instance of faith, which is unjustified belief, the polar opposite of knowledge. Science is rigor, or the body of knowledge thereby attained, or the culture that develops around the body of knowledge obtained by rigor. Process, results, culture.

[@ErickChaplin]

I think you are misleading many concepts. In fact, the expansion of the universe has never been put in doubt, what it uncertain is the acceleration of this. The universe expanding is almost a fact

[@robrose4694]

Use your brain please, expansion is based on assuming the red shift observation tells us the objects are moving away from us and his entire presentation is discrediting this. He gives equations and facts and a compelling explanation, what are you offering? How does your statement make any sense? Tell us why he is wrong? Just saying he is wrong means nothing.

[@havenbastion]

Aether is thinning as matter coagulates due to gravity, causing the red shift typically taken as expansion.

[@ramborambo2072]

WORLD FOR TRUMP

[@ivanmenezes640]

When ur not expert, u dont explain or try To explain subject as wast as this. Our observable universe is expanding At the speed of light Space is mostly empty There is no logic to u r thoughts

[@TheRealFreznoBob]

The moon is still within the earth's atmosphere.