This Star Is Older Than The Universe and Scientists Can't Explain It

[@aureliusmcnaughton6133]

This is one of my favorite science channels, but every time I see a title that has a Lie in it I think a little bit less of that channel. Scientists CAN explain it, as was revealed in the video. You didn't need to lie for clickbait, you have a good show. Every time you do, intelligent viewers feel insulted and become less and less likely to click on your content. Just sayin...

[@LiftandLogic]

I thought the same

[@p3tj4]

I've been watching him a lot less lately for this exact reason.

[@nffclacey]

😂 first time on the internet, I do agree with you but clickbate is as old as time never going to change people

[@deltahavoc1224]

I think yall in this comment section need to learn more about KZbin and it's algorithm and how creators have to adapt youtubes shade practices. Support the youtubers you like, ignore the titles. And enjoy the creators. It's just a title to bring clicks that's literally all it's for.

[@sabineb.5616]

@aurelius, l absolutely agree! And because of this blatant click bait l decided not to watch this video essay and do some research myself about this peculiar star- and lo and behold! Scientists can explain it! No need to to waste my time with watching the video 😊

[@theophrastusbombastus1359]

The problem with trying to determine the age of the universe (using existing methods) is that they presume the laws of physics have been consistent at all places and all times since its inception

[@Nebukanezzer]

Are you for real? They ABSOLUTELY do NOT assume that. We just have no evidence for that kind of thing, but yeah, you're toooootally the first one to come up with this idea.

[@renaissanceman5847]

the real problem is the fact that they think they know whats happening without being able to see beyond the observable universe.

[@Iselas181]

The observable universe has nothing to do with the big bang, as every point in space is the center of the universe ie the big bang is all around us it has nothing to do with distance.

[@slaapt]

@Nebukanezzer They do assume physics works the same everywhere though. Because, as you say, we have no evidence to the contrary. But we have no real evidence for it either. So until we find a reason to say physics works differently in other regions, we'll simply assume it works the same everywhere. Because given the option between "our bit of space is unique" and "our bit of space is common," the latter one is more likely.

[@zaph1rax]

Then you need to explain why the laws of physics have changed. There are no evidence of it changing, and assuming that it has without any kind of evidence is just pure unscientific speculation.

[@fieryelf]

Guys, I've been around since the beginning of time and I can confirm that the universe is AT LEAST 40 years old.

[@decker528]

I can second that since I had a birthday this year. The universe is at least 40 years old

[@doeb23]

I’m sorry but I’ve been here for 30 years and I have seen no evidence that the universe existed before my birth, so, it can’t be older than that

[@Deeeeezeeeee]

You actually have a better answer then most so called experts! The True answer is just a perspective

[@michaelbrock4659]

Unless you've been in a coma for 62.5 years.

[@GangOfVortex]

this is so good

[@JamisKool]

When we think we start to understand things, things make us rethink.

[@altrag]

Not so much in this case. This time it was more "we just needed better data and to be more careful". More broadly though yeah... we find weird crap all the time out in the depths of space. So far almost all of it has been explainable within our current theories though - some things just needed a bit of extra work because they weren't an immediately obvious fit. That of course is extremely frustrating because we know our current theories aren't complete but we don't even have a particularly good guess as to how to complete them. We've just been kind of fumbling around with entirely random guesses based on concepts like "this math looks pretty" for the past couple of decades, basically just hoping we hit the jackpot by fluke. We'd really like to see something that genuinely breaks what we know as that would give us an idea of what the next step needs to be. But so far, for all the surface-level surprises, the universe has stubbornly refused to give us anything more than we already know.

[@guysome3263]

who wouldda rethunk that

[@slobodangrasic5649]

It is the spiral way of knowlege, never-ending process.

[@JZsBFF]

A hundred years ago astronomers believed that the galaxy was all there was. I'd say that we continue to add new knowledge on top the foundations laid by giants.

[@joeb5316]

This star is so old it remembers having to hike to the cluster every eon ... up the gravity well ... BOTH WAYS!!!!!

[@slipstick985]

Good one.

[@CrystalCollins-d6n]

All of us older people can relate to that!

[@Wunderpantz]

I remember back when this was all quantum fields.

[@mrs.padmeskywalker9329]

LOVE IT! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@joecalabrese5254]

😅

[@nem447]

How astronomers name stars: “hey what if we just slammed our head on a keyboard?” Cp7b89.-d

[@Ice.muffin]

come on, you deserve many more likes 😂😂😂😂

[@zzmr_stretchzz8772]

ok but they havnt started using emojis yet so its not that bad.... again yet

[@bryanergau6682]

Yo............loud laughing from this.

[@AngryDad.]

​@@zzmr_stretchzz8772you only said yet once my guy

[@billbrasky7885]

😂

[@americangoombah4015]

3:15 is when the ad ends.

[@lotuschamp7796]

Sponsorblock addon fixes all that shit

[@susankay497]

Thanks for this!!

[@Robert-pw6cv]

Someone doesn't like helping out the channel lol

[@zarakbugti8349]

Thanks mate ❤

[@dI9ESTIVES123]

@@Robert-pw6cv do you know how sponsorships work on YT? He doesn’t get paid depending on how many people watch the ad.

[@stockvrgaming9301]

The simple fact that its one of the oldest stars we have found so far, makes him special enough to keep calling him Methusala's star to me.

[@blackbirdpie217]

Scientists revisited their assessment of the star's age only because the estimate they first had was unreasonable. So they look, calculate and ponder until they formulate a reasonable answer. But this makes me wonder how many other stars and related astronomical ages, speeds and distances are incorrect but generally accepted only because the estimate seems reasonable.

[@Fx_Explains]

Everything.

[@chuckintexas]

The functional purpose of a phenomenon like this is that it forces regular polishing of theory and of testing-parameters . THIS is hiw _Svience_ continues to GROW , and why the concept of "Scientific Consensus" is a complete Non Sequitor .

[@andyzabroske5545]

Indeed I just said the same thing. They worked it until it made them right. Gosh forbid theyre wrong with their human thinking about something that's incomprehensible.

[@kevincockerham3806]

Sometimes science uses faith, like when they say the universe is flat. Lol

[@chuckintexas]

@@andyzabroske5545 - Your point _absoltely_ has *VALID* merit , but its THESE kinds of "scientific anomalies" that force a reworking of theory , techniques or even the MATH _itself_ ! Ok , so they reworked the structure of their theory to iron out its wrinkles for THIS _particular_ case 👍. _NOW_ the *REAL* test comes as they apply the re-work to _other_ cases to TEST its consistency and accuracy . AS they get more and more precise in their methodology , their results get finer and finer . THAT'S the whole _point_ of *true* "Science" ! Sadly , to _your_ point (👍) , that's NOT _always_ the MOTIVE . The result then in that case , is CONSSTENTLY _skewed_ when what _you're_ pointing out takes *hold* . Just _my_ take on your EXCELLENT comment 👍. Thanks .

[@joshb6470]

17:44 my mother in law will be thrilled to know she has some kind of competition

[@bryanergau6682]

Say it to her old ass face.

[@JonWolaver]

Yeah

[@nickrog6759]

Yeah

[@L_87]

Yup

[@compuguy123]

Meth User Lah? XD

[@robertvondarth1730]

Perhaps time isn’t smoothly distributed in space?

[@jasonrice5628]

Time isn’t even distributed correctly on the planet lol. 🤣 As the saying goes “Time isn’t real, bring me tomorrows newspaper.” 🤙🏻

[@TwoPaw-Shapurr]

👀...👀...yo mama is smoothly distributed in space....👀

[@pcbaddieacademy]

Oh shit Dr Juicehead cracked the code of the Universe

[@filmerstudio3693]

@@pcbaddieacademyyou play badminton 🏸 hold ur head low. and ur shoulders lower.

[@wouterroos2359]

It isn't.

[@jacoba.gattenby6309]

Video starts at 3:18

[@epser5842]

thx dawg

[@freddiestinson1117]

Thanks

[@anonomouslychangingoutlook5103]

Kills me with that shhh do it at the end bro

[@ericpenrose3541]

I can't begin to see how this ,- even as a sub giant - can be viewed with a home telescope when early galaxies can't. Making no sense to me.

[@DaveMiller2]

The star isn't older than the universe. Scientists are wrong about the age of the star, the age of the universe, or both.

[@tvcluelessvibez790]

Right. No matter how many times we find out we are wrong about things like this we still believe that everything else we know is truth.

[@Paddy47266]

Yeah... But you know the truth. Do ya?

[@Harry-cj3yu]

Less truth, and more a best fit model based on our current data. We know something is a certain way until we accumulate enough evidence to disprove the previous understanding. The scientific method requires that you have a foundation based in an "ideal model" created from previous observations, you must then adapt the model to fit with new observations, regularly test theories using available data, dispense with old ideas when they no longer hold true with observations, and understand that the development of human knowledge is ever greater refinement of what we currently know. Example. Observation 1 - Light is observed to cause interference patterns like water waves. Conclusion 1 - light must have wave-like properties Observation 2 - light can be seen to have a fixed amount of energy, unlike water waves, and can interact with some materials in a particle-like manner. Conclusion 2 - light must have a particle-like structure. You have two sets of true observations, both have a conclusion that contradict each other. In order to explain both sets of observations, we must conclude that our understanding of the natural world, our best fit model, has to accommodate structures that can be both particule-like and wave-like. We refine our understanding but proving our previous model was incorrect. Just because we didn't fully understand things before does not make old ideas less valuable, they served a purpose and now are no longer needed to explain our observations.

[@malcolmstockbridge2569]

@@tvcluelessvibez790 Thats true.......:)

[@dekippiesip]

​@tvcluelessvibez790 I think that scientists in this particular field may state their statements more assertively purely to counter religious pressure. In other fields of study, you don't have the same kind of relentless religious pressure as in evolution and cosmology. Counterproductively this means theories are presented with more certainty than is justified.

[@coreyg7364]

The most bazar thing is that it never occured to the people studying this star that their dating technique might be flawed.

[@taylan3363]

You are an absolute tard. The age of the star is within error bounds for our estimates of the age of the universe and this title is clickbait. No scientist has suggested that this star, or any other, is older than the universe. The craziest thing is that it never occurred to you to verify your bullshit beliefs with reality. Go fuck yourself you intellectual cretin.

[@Nickdd98]

Why on earth would you assume that? Of course it occurred to them. Every scientific paper that gets results like this says in their conclusion something along the lines of "more work will be needed to refine measurements and methods to determine if our results are correct".

[@AmianteTarvoke]

@coreyg7364 It's bizarre that you could say something so ignorant even without watching this video.

[@pyronix]

it's also bizarre that you didn't quite nail the spelling of the word "bizarre"

[@bongerman42069]

My teacher back in HS told me the universe is likely much older than we think the big bang occured based on the rate the universe expands and that there will come a point where we see no stars at all and that the window for studying the stars is finite to us but almost infinite in reality until all stars burn out and the expansion is so great that nothing will exist except the void of the cosmos. This could result in a collapse of the universe and all remaining matter will return to a primordial singularity again and potentially start a new big bang eventually if given the opportunity. Matter can not be destroyed because of conservation of mass and the big bang has likely happened more than once and if the universe can and does expand it can also contract and then expand.

[@solareiusdeiu]

If an object is older than the universe it just means that the universe is older than we thought. Thats it. Simple.

[@Sanquinity]

Or that there was something tangible/physical before what we currently consider "the big bang". Meaning that the big bang model would be wrong in some way.

[@bakihanma5849]

or it's a leftover from a previous universe

[@NonEuclideanTacoCannon]

Or could be that their observations and/or models are wrong. That happens all the time.

[@davidthompson1573]

Or, all dating processes are inaccurate based on variables we’re unaware of. I suspect this is most likely, in almost every ancient dating method.

[@Censeo]

Nothing is older than reality

[@gmollster]

So basically, they prove by calculating how old they think this star is that they really have no idea if any of their calculations are close to accurate.

[@DroneBeeStrike]

Stars older than the universe, black holes that shouldn't exist, celestial objects behaving in "impossible" ways - as if we have it all figured out. We know nothing

[@exclamationpointman3852]

The science field in general is a foundation of arrogance because they want to say they "figured it all out, and done all that without a God".

[@NexxtTimeDontMiss]

no,, YOU know nothing, WE know alot actually

[@DroneBeeStrike]

@@NexxtTimeDontMiss 😆 mmmk pumpkin, you go on thinking that

[@NexxtTimeDontMiss]

@@DroneBeeStrike says the 45yr wine mom

[@DroneBeeStrike]

@NexxtTimeDontMiss Wow, you're really proving your intelligence now. 👏 Such insight, such eloquence. Your verbal repertoire has me simply stymied.

[@blockerman3d266]

So, obviously we don't understand how the universe formed. Which shouldn't be surprising considering how little of the universe we've seen. Almost everything we think we know is extrapolated from light cast from stars millions of years ago, seen from here. We keep making up exceptions to our view (like dark matter and energy) rather than re-examine the core ideas we base the theories on. Making things more complicated rather than the sublime and simple explanations that probably actually are truth. We resist challenging our "knowledge" because it invalidates our beliefs. This is the hubris of man.

[@firecat6666]

Sometimes we need more complicated explanations because things ARE complicated and simple explanations just aren't enough. Well, sometimes.

[@Temulon]

"We resist challenging our "knowledge" because it invalidates our beliefs" That sentence doesn't sound like one you'd use if describing scientists (who use models which are subject to testing and subject to revision, so that when they find new information they actually modify the scientific model) That sentence sounds suspiciously like a sentence one would write if one were describing a theist.

[@garyfrancis6193]

I admit to not seeing much of the universe. I hardly ever go outof town.

[@LouisNothing]

Occam's Razor Or just keep making up sh@t till it all fits.

[@ShortsHound]

It just goes to show how little we know our science is based on assumptions we make on what we observe, some results are absurd. and shows our mistakes

[@gabriellashimone6546]

Science is a giant toolbox. What we can determine by using the tools is only as accurate as the methods, means, measures, and tools we use, as well as our knowledge, understanding, and creative use of those tools. Quality of tools is also a factor. The point is, if we are honest with ourselves and if we follow scientific method, we have to realistically say that all our knowledge of the universe is, at best, a calculated guess.

[@KarlJayce]

guesses

[@Navigator001]

Well said, it seems that most people think that science is concrete. It is fluid, and changes as advancements are made. Science is a system of best guesses, some are fairly concrete, but many are best guesses. Trust the science.....lol. A fools errand.

[@bigsmiler5101]

A big problem is that among scientists, if anyone says, "I think we've always been wrong about this," then that person is shunned out of the "industry," and they might as well get a job as a car mechanic or something.

[@gabriellashimone6546]

@bigsmiler5101 That's not a new problem. That's been a problem since human beings have made determinations about anything. At best, we are fools and failures. At worst, we are mad as well.

[@decker528]

​@@Navigator001my chemistry professor said there is no such thing as scientific fact. There is only the best explanation we have for a given phenomenon

[@lonelyalchemist9865]

"Hey I've seen this one before, it's a classic." Any Outer Wilds fan.

[@Normanwhatever-p2b]

@@lonelyalchemist9865 And he just did another joke that didn't go over 😂😂😂😂

[@MalachiteViking]

The Methuselah star (HD 140283) blows my mind! It's estimated to be around 12 billion years old, which is crazy considering that's almost as old as the universe itself. What really gets me is how its age seems to conflict with what we know about cosmology. I love that scientists are still digging into this mystery. It just goes to show how much we still don’t fully understand about the universe. Can’t wait to see what they discover next!

[@jennifervan75]

Maybe it's from another universe

[@cannotthinkofoneatth]

The universe is obviously more than 12 years old.. some scientists have already claimed that.. and although it might appear a long shot, Hinduism cosmology of a few thousands of years ago says the lifespan of this universe is 311 trillion years and we are only half way past.. could likely be that

[@0wl999]

Well, if you actually watch the video it's not ' almost as old ', it's OLDER THAN.😂

[@impti]

lmfao why does this sound so AI generated

[@FirewallMightyHero]

Thanks, ChatGPT.

[@FatalFist]

The answer is simple, the universe is older than we think.

[@Normanwhatever-p2b]

No shit Sherlock Holmes 😂😂😂😂. I'm sure they know.😊

[@andrewnicholson4811]

i dont think "scientists" really have a clue ... "the big bang" just another way of saying we dont have a clue so we make it up ! we will never understand the universe fully, its simply too big and expanding ....into what ? they dont have a clue ...its almost a perfect vacume (a vacume needs a barrier to exist )...so whats outside that etc etc etc never ending headfuck !lol !

[@Ayeee56789]

Or time and space are malleable and effect things differently

[@Ezu6112]

Bro didn’t watch the video

[@FistandFootMartialArts]

Or we only know some stuff, certainly not all. Prolly much less than half. Sorta like the Einstein quote about "the difference between a learned man and an ignorant one is infinitesimal compared to all knowledge" Something like that, anyway. lol

[@damian-offthegrid4092]

Scientists don’t know how old this star is… the end

[@oyenations162]

They pretend to know stuff they have no clue about.

[@jambear7862]

@@oyenations162pretty much all physics scientists lol

[@noneofyourbeeswax01]

@@oyenations162 And you know this because you have even less of a clue.

[@noneofyourbeeswax01]

@@jambear7862 Including the ones who came up with the principles that allow you to post this inane comment on the internet? Idiot.

[@briandelion49]

@@oyenations162 Since when is science about certainty? They can't agree on how old this star is, therefore they haven't a clue? Look no further than yourself if you want to know the meaning of clueless!

[@Gyno-Mackima]

Always remember, our theory of the age of the universe is based off of the visible observable universe we currently have access to. No matter what number scientist try to choose it’ll always be wrong because we simply don’t have enough information to have even the slightest idea.

[@randomuserame]

Slightly less uninformed compared to the general public. But _relative_ to the general public they're "experts."

[@dibdetone]

I agree, we can only make an educated guess based on what we can only "see", & measures which depends on what technology we currently have.. The more we find, the more questions we discovers, the answers is becoming more, & more "what the f is going on!?".. Still it is a healthy curiosity which has driven us to the modernity.. I just hope human kind did not get too cocky or celebrated too early again.. Civilization seems easily doomed when looked back at the previous ancient ruins stretched all over the world above the sea & under it.. Most of them are forgotten & lost in time waiting to be rediscovered again.. Oh let's not forget the haunting mysteries of our vast wonderful ocean deepest depth & those underground freshwater caves.. Scary & awesome..

[@SirWussiePants]

We have much more than the slightest idea. Is every detail right? No. Will we make discoveries that change the edges of our understanding? Yes. But that doesnt mean we dont have the "slightest idea"

[@Gyno-Mackima]

We don’t because we can’t. Most of everything we “know” in astrology is false. The universe itself doesn’t have morals or opinions or theories, when it comes to absolute-objective-truth of the actual real universe it would be ignorant for us to say we even know even 0.1 perfect of actual objective truth. Plus our observable universe could be a grain of sand compared to the actual current size of the universe. The amount of times we come across something that “changes what we think we know about science” happens wayy too often and of course it happens that’s how you grow and develop better theories and techniques. But if we’re going with “13.7 billion years old” and too stubborn to let a star change that theory then we can’t grow. I’m not labeling myself as smarter or even close to as smart as any expert scientist on planet earth, but I’m we’ll aware we’ve only been keeping track of time itself for 2,024 years and our understanding of science has been around much less than 2,000 years. There is no way in hell or heaven we figured out the truth of the age of the actual real universe itself. I believe the theories are not based off of bs but I’m sure even they’re aware of the shakey theories we stir up.

[@chuckintexas]

Well we DO have the _slightest_ idea , but to YOUR point , that's pretty much ALL we have 👍!

[@JamesEpic3]

There are more stars in the universe than there are all the grains of sand in all the beaches of the world.

[@thembadube9589]

Plus a pinch of salt.

[@Stephen_Eee]

Man I'd hate to be the person to have to count the sand 😂

[@alexism9656]

Ah yes, I too listen to Avenged Sevenfold

[@askhams]

There's more sand in your butt crack, than, well, more than there should be

[@3dfightclubfan]

That's actually not true . Google it

[@JonSoloYouTube]

I'm glad Malcolm stopped being in the middle and used his genius to start a KZbin channel

[@Lawliet734]

@Jon Why can't Malcolm continue being in the middle and still use his genius to start a KZbin channel?

[@lucashoffman5533]

@@Lawliet734 he dilated

[@calliope4293]

The real problem is when the scientists find out that creation is not as old as they think.

[@goodoldbubba6620]

Why the muddy water? If everything thought before James Webb went online is wrong, then it's wrong. Revise the theory and move onward. Is that not what science commands?

[@PurifyWithLight]

It used to be. Now they shout new ideas down scared to death of losing funding and facing that fact that they wasted their lives.

[@MrAweeze]

I just want to know the Universe as it truly is. That's why we have consciousness, after all.

[@DeathBYDesign666]

​@@PurifyWithLightI draw the line when it comes to people that take that idea to the place of saying that the earth is flat, there is no reason to think that science could ever be that wrong. I believe in lots of strange things that science won't acknowledge but I won't indulge in ideas that invalidate basically all of science, while there are definitely things we don't know and mainstream science might dismiss this idea, I don't see how they could get something like that wrong. We would not have gotten this far if science was that incompetent, observation from space is not required to figure such things out.

[@lylez00]

Well said.

[@Klaus-777]

Unfortunately we are ruled by those with political and religious agendas.

[@KyleWilson96]

Though Thoughty2 forgot to mention we don’t “Know” that the universe is that old, it’s just a scientific guess

[@dianacanales2526]

To be fair to Arran, he did say, "IF the models and data used are perfect..." @ 12:24

[@ab2tract]

tldr: a star formed within the milky way with very little metals, scientists dont know why and assumed it was old.

[@MrSindala]

You've not paid attention. The Milky Way wasn't around yet when this star formed.

[@Stefan-ox5sk]

PAY ATTENTION

[@Ballissle]

It's not in the milky way

[@OmegaZyion]

@@Ballissle The Milky Way Galaxy is 100,000 lightyears across. This star is only 190 light years away from Earth. So unless the Earth is on the outer most edge of the galaxy (which it isn't) the star is likely in the galaxy.

[@OmegaZyion]

@@MrSindala The Milky Way is estimated to be about 13 billion years old. The star's current estimated age is under that.

[@Tight--LiNeZ]

A star older than the universe, is like beef burger older than cattle, fire and bread.

[@crazyVIDSguy]

I feel like scientists kept getting “new readings” or intentionally getting false readings until they finally got a result that ended with the star being younger than 13.8 billion years

[@senpaisark]

Isn't that what space science is though? What stuff can I math together to convince enough people to buy my book cause they can't really prove me wrong, least not while I'm alive. So as long as it's convincing enough it just needs to support my story?

[@biliegh_itiswhatitis]

The truth is, we use man made computers to date our earth. When everything we understand is a THEORY, we take it as fact.

[@lucentpenguin4675]

Science ™️ has bugged me lately.

[@elizabethebbighausen9341]

Always a good day when Thoughty Two uploads!! 🎉💜

[@hundun5604]

11:50 "...dating a single star." I wish that I could date a single star.

[@MotheoJaga]

6:41 "Am I High" 😂😂😂

[@dI9ESTIVES123]

Scientists can explain it. It’s not older than the universe because the margin of error for its age is so wide.

[@filmtajm35]

As they say: The truth is out there...

[@Depakot-NL]

​@@filmtajm35Somewhere

[@t.kersten7695]

it´s just like so many other methods (like C14 dating): all of it very uncertain, full of big margins and with a high risk of giving wrong numbers if not used with great care. but yet people always pretend that those methods work flawless and give the correct answer despite how even small errors can ruin everything.

[@Dooguk]

@@t.kersten7695 Name these pretenders.

[@drewfeld8483]

"Scientists" now seems to include a wide range of non-thinkers.

[@MooShaka89]

I don't know if you read comments or not but I've been watching your channel for a long time and I really really love this video. I love that we were able to just figure it out and basically corrected who cares. We're figuring things out that's awesome.

[@carterhall2653]

Suckazz😊

[@zaardo]

How can the galaxy be 30 billion of light years away yet we only have had 13 billion years of time for light to get to us

[@Zothaqqua]

This star is perfectly interesting *without* all the anti-science hyperbole. Please don't contribute to that ignorance. 1. Someone who does *not* constantly question everything they know about the universe is *not* a scientist. Therefore no scientist was forced to do this. 2. This star did not throw the entire scientific community into turmoil. Please leave the "new data leaves scientists baffled" nonsense to the red top tabloids. Cheers, and keep the interesting stuff coming!

[@donm5354]

SO Scientists CAN Explain It? Hey! The title of the video is wrong and the Star is NOT older than the Universe. 🤨

[@Klaus-777]

The star is older. Their solution ..... It's not.

[@douglasclerk2764]

​@@Klaus-777Poor thing should still be on pension.

[@del1000005]

Did you learn something from the video?

[@mkaz3997]

I wonder how much 'tweaking' was done, in order to get the number down and more in line with the standard model?

[@michaelsurratt1864]

Yeah, well the bait ain’t gonna click itself

[@silenttitan416]

A 1,600 light year galaxy is tiny compared to the milky way. How could we observe something 30 billion lightyears away if the universe is only 13 billion years old?

[@silenttitan416]

It would take 33.6 billion years for light from a galaxy 33.6 hillion light years away from earth to reach us. Wheres the logic?

[@snowstorm998]

My exact thought.

[@javabeanz8549]

@@silenttitan416 so, if it was in that condition, in that location, 33.6 billion years ago, is it further away now? And how long before that did it form? Basic math doesn't add up to the "estimates"... if they are so smart, why is basic math disagreeing with them...

[@johnb6011]

Actually, the distance of JADES-GS-z14-0 is only an assumption based on expansion models. The light still took 13.8 billion years to reach us, we just assume its 33.6 billion light years away because of how we assume the universe expands. While it can be mind bending to consider a galaxy 3 times the distance as it took the light to reach us, its also equally mind bending to consider expansion. The expansion of the universe is complex, while the galaxy isn't moving faster than light, the distance between us is stretching faster than light because of the rate of speed and distance. Its like a car driving away from you at a constant speed and the road itself stretching away from you at an equal speed if not faster, the car will look like its going 300 mph when its probably only doing 100 mph. The expansion of the universe is accelerating and so we assume based on that, that the galaxy is accelerating as well. No object is moving faster than light, but the initial point of light was 13.8 billion years ago and the predicted distance is 3 times the distance from that point now. Its sort of like conception of a time paradox lol

[@javabeanz8549]

@@johnb6011 That's still a number of assumptions, where the math doesn't add up. Even if the point of origin is exactly between us and that galaxy, 14+14 is still only 28. And we know there are things on the opposite side of us, from that galaxy. And "The Big Bang" sounds like a fairy tale. Do they really expect us to believe that there was nothing, and then BOOM, things came into existence? If there was a Big Bang, it came from something. Maybe there was a colossal black hole that sucked everything, and finally gave up? That would be more believable, like the former super continents of Earth. Considering that there are known mineral deposits along the Idaho border, that appear to exact match some on the North side of Australia. Sorry, but I am just sick of being told that something "is a fact" by people who are making their best guesses. Too many missing pieces to put together the whole puzzle, so some things are made up that might fit, but can't be proven.

[@SnackZaddy]

Kind of sounds to convenient to believe. Kind of like, "we'll keep re measuring the age until we get a result that we like better".

[@lkw6640]

The reason why not all scientists agree about the age of the universe is that it is based on how far we can see, which is 13.7 billion light years. Beyond that, space itself is expanding faster than light can travel across it. It’s a barrier that we can never see beyond and there could be much more beyond that point. We just don’t know. The Hubble constant (which is an odd name since it changes over time) dictates what that distance is. It would also imply that the Earth is the center of the universe since the 13.7 billion light year limit is in every direction from Earth, although no scientist will ever admit to that implication. However, Try imagining that you’re on a planet that’s 13.7 billion light years away from Earth, that’s what scientists believe is the edge of the universe. Would you see stars in every direction up to 13.7 billion light years away from you? Or would you see nothing in one direction and what would become our galaxy and planet Earth in the other? You wouldn’t be able to see anything beyond Earth’s future location for the same reason that we cannot see anything beyond your location. You would just assume that Earth is at the edge of the universe even though there is actually another 13.7 billion light years beyond it. That’s why there is controversy. We can’t see beyond a certain point so there can’t be anything beyond that point. That’s kind of a ridiculous argument isn’t it? As far as “let there be light” and the cosmic microwave background radiation, that was only about 350 thousand years after the Big Bang. That’s right, no typo, about a third of a million years. How incredible is that!? I don’t claim to know how it is that we are still being bombarded by this radiation from every direction in the universe some 13.66 billion years later. Why didn’t it just reach us and then pass us and then stop? I have no idea but it’s absolutely fascinating. Great video, thank you!!

[@mischavanasperen3063]

The observable universe is estimated to be about 93 billion lightyears across; That might complicate things a bit..

[@chadpersing5596]

​@@mischavanasperen3063Did you mean unobservable?

[@mischavanasperen3063]

@@chadpersing5596 No, I didn't, although it indeed actually is.. unobservable. Look at the theory behind the number; We have no way of knowing any of it, because that far away light hasn't reached us yet, and may well never do.

[@lkw6640]

@@mischavanasperen3063 that’s my point. Because, at that distance, space is expanding faster than the speed of light relative to us. So space is basically dragging the light with it. That light can never reach us so we can’t know what’s beyond that distance. But I like to do thought experiments where I am at the edge of the observable universe and I try to imagine what I would see. And the fact is that we are already at the edge of the observable universe relative to an observer that we consider to be at the edge of the universe relative to us. So what do we see? We see another 13.7 billion light years farther than that observer can. In other words, we just don’t know and may never be able to know unless some quantum leap in technology allows us to travel there at faster than the speed of light. It’s just kind of fun for me to imagine things like this and I hope that I can inspire others to do the same.

[@mischavanasperen3063]

@@lkw6640 Agreed. But, you pointed it out as a thought experiment, which is exactly what it is. A large part of the scientific community however treats it as a sunstantiated theory which it just isn't. which is quite annoying, since they very well know that obtaining this information will never be humanly possible; FTL just isn't a thing. And never will be. For that speed the traveller needs to be as massless as a photon, not to mention the (near) infinite energy they would need for propulsion. And then there's the causality violation, which would probably generate a chain reaction of an unfathomable nature. So, it's basically philosophy. Which is plenty of interesting; What if we keep jumping 13,7 LY in one direction; Maybe we can do that more times than the theory postulates; in that case the universe could well be 300B LY, or even larger; The edge moves faster than light, but we do not know how much faster. The only thing I'm certain of is that íf the Universe is indeed 13,7B LY old, we will not be able to see farther than 13,7B LY in all directions, making the Universe we can see 27,4B LY across. And since science declares a far bigger number I added in my first post that that (overly) complicates things; If any calculation starts with even one faulty parameter, well..

[@jacksquat4140]

A lot of assumptions, speculation, conjecture, and wild-ass guesses have been woven into the fabric of "science". They simply don't know what they claim to know.

[@rach8241]

They want to come up with a way to disprove God. They will never be able to explain the mysteries of the universe. Its just unfathomable.

[@jacksquat4140]

@@rach8241: Of what benefit is disproving God? Who's God do they wish to disprove? All Gods or just yours?

[@pinguino55h40]

science does not claim to "know" in the purest sense of the word, it just is 99.99% sure.

[@pinguino55h40]

@@rach8241 science is not made to disprove anything, it is quite the opposite

[@jacksquat4140]

@@pinguino55h40: The "scientific" community has also pushed science fiction on the public with 100% certainty that zero evidence even matters. What matters is whimsy and whatever they want to believe. Knowledge and truth has no place in "science" when consensus and intellectual incest is far more convenient and fun.

[@tzgardner]

The reason you can't explain it, is because the whole assumptions about the age of the universe is all wrong.

[@greatscott369]

There's a good chance, we know nothing about the beginning of the universe

[@MrColdsteal]

We can't accurately date anything. Why does anyone believe they can calculate a fuqing star far far away...

[@purrito4424]

This video could have been a minute long. It's redshifted to 18 minutes.

[@allanvincent4450]

or blue shifted out.

[@t.kersten7695]

time dilation

[@bastiaan7777777]

This channel is overrated.

[@mimzi7974]

If you wanted an answer in 1 minute you probably shouldn’t be watching a science trivia channel. Have you watched any of his videos before? Majority of them are just explaining science and history facts. Cause that’s the great part - learning

[@BatkoNashBandera774]

Having an anomalous star (to our understanding of the universe) in the constellation "Libra" is more than "poetic justice", it's "universal irony".

[@Christian_Prepper]

14:10 *In other words, scientists keep jacking with the numbers until it fits their presuppositions.*

[@thureintun1687]

I bet your ip trace back around china... Your job? To put distrust of science into americans.. What? So you'd be say "hey that'd effect chineses too!!".. Ahahaha you're saying "a financial issue of 3 millions to a multimillions and the same issue to a poor old man who work daily extreme job are the same" Lmao HEEL NO. The disfigurement of education is more damaging to USA aa a whole than china simply because if huh look at china as a whole, or russia or india, lik 90% are illiterate 21st century social espionages conducting by th east are just utter disgusting and disgraceful! Just for communual jealousy sake they are ruining whole species!

[@ST-kq9py]

Exactly lol

[@ninak8370]

What doesn't fit will be made to fit 😉

[@altrag]

While that description is apt in a way, it's also very much how a lot of high end mathematics gets done (not just in physics but also engineering and other disciplines). Essentially we have tools to convert "hard" problems like crazy integrals into series of progressively-smaller terms, which allows us to approximate a value even when we can't calculate it exactly. But sometimes those progressively-smaller numbers are still large enough to meaningfully affect the interpretation of the results. "Jacking with the numbers" typically just means calculating a few more terms to tighten up the approximation. It's an odd quirk of the tools that the smaller terms tend to be much harder to calculate than the larger terms (though still vastly easier than calculating an exact solution from the original equations), so our initial guesses usually stop after just a few terms and that's often good enough - but not always. Just to be clear, that's not hand-waving. These "tools" are well-defined techniques with proven theories behind them. Look up "Taylor series expansion" for one of the more prominent ones.

[@kishka9886]

I've been noticing this in many different things these days.

[@hogg4229]

Sounds like scientists changed the age of the star so they can keep their theory in tact

[@scottpayne7575]

Just making shit up for peer reviewed papers.

[@hermanb8389]

It probably came from another universe but hey that's just a theory A SPACE THEORY.

[@jennifervan75]

My thoughts exactly

[@famisigo]

I see your reference 😊

[@Snow.-1000]

Nope. Reason: RELIGION

[@Snow.-1000]

Only one universe

[@rainedrop14]

@@Snow.-1000 source: trust me bro

[@patrickhayes6348]

So I guess if something doesn't make sense or we don't know, we just "tweak it " till it does. Got it. Science is great 😂

[@eziomorte3380]

Humanity is so fascinating and scary at the same time. We can (possibly) say how old the whole cosmos is but we are one step from killing each other because of our (actually non-existent) differences.

[@TwippyTwilight]

I think we just don't know enough to give the universe a birth date. The Universe is probably a lot older than we think it is. Doesn't mean the big bang isn't real, just that our way of aging it is off. It's probably so old that it would blow our minds. I'd probably add a few million zeros to the end of that age.

[@vetinaris1297]

Think...probably...probably Well you convinced me with your scientific thesis

[@fafski1199]

It could even be in a state of infinitely looping or cycling, where the big bang and everything since, is just a small part of a much larger cycle.

[@TwippyTwilight]

@@vetinaris1297 Wow, you just changed my mind with that stunning set of logic. Where did you go to school? Reddit?

[@brindlekintales]

> It's probably so old that it would blow our minds. It already is, Sparky!

[@TwippyTwilight]

@@brindlekintales 14 or so billion years doesn't come close to blowing my mind. An octillion years or more would start to blow my mind....

[@TheBrawlBox]

14:37 You said ' Comfortably younger than the universe.' I think you should have said 'Conveniently younger than the universe.'

[@abbiebeast]

Ya all just theory and James Webb Tele is changing it all.

[@Hummmminify]

Oh for heavens sakes it just proves that we don’t know when “ Our Universe “ was born.

[@NickThaKidd]

babe wake up thoughty2 posted🎉

[@dansmith9406]

I find it hilarious that science and religion argue about the creation of the universe, yet scientists give biblical names to stars

[@Geengebruiker]

9:18 So if Jades-GS-Z14-0 is located 33 billion light years away, then why are we able to see it if the galaxy is only 13,7 billion years old? Like wouldn’t it only become visible after 20 billion years later?

[@fredfredburger5583]

It is because of the expansion of the universe. Space expands in every point and in every direction due to dark matter. So the distance increased while the universe aged. The distance of 33 billion is a calculated estimate based on the expansion of the universe.

[@thurisas8438]

​@fredfredburger5583 * due to dark energy Dark matter is the spooky stuff that adds mass to keep things from flying apart. Dark Energy is the spooky stuff that makes everything fly apart. 👻

[@dancasey9660]

@@fredfredburger5583 So how close was it when it started to produce light, 13.8 billion light years away? Can this be estimated?

[@ColePoss]

I thought the same thing

[@throwaway6478]

@@dancasey9660Yes, it can. Assuming the light is 12 billion years old, it was in the region of 200 MLY away at that time.

[@CarlLang-l6j]

Guess what when you get access to the data set of almost all the hubble and new space telescope you realize they are seriously fudging the numbers to get the data set to make images that aren't there.

[@TowynEvans]

Everything in space is theorised, even the speed of light.

[@yayhandles]

Am I high??

[@ernestnobela1344]

Bro disappeared for 2 weeks and came back saying # instead of Heysh😹

[@douglasclerk2764]

Eish!

[@thanksfernuthin]

The only thing we know for sure... is we know nothing. I wish people would say things like "the current theory is..." instead of "The age of the universe is 13.8 billion years."

[@cheebadigga4092]

Honestly thank you very much for this ad. Gonna try this!

[@toottootfinn9455]

Jeez what are these bots

[@polpotthenervoussussyimpos2777]

​@@toottootfinn9455she clearly isn't a bot

[@cheebadigga4092]

@@toottootfinn9455 wat? It was the first useful sponsor ad I've seen in a very long time.

[@toottootfinn9455]

@polpotthenervoussussyimpos2777 Wow thank you for this advice! I cant wait to try when I get home 💗💅

[@GregorianFrench]

They were talking about Magic Mind

[@Ashirking]

18:26 thank you 😊

[@kodasweet8425]

So basically, we don't know anything for certain. They are spending $$$$$$$ on guessing the age of things light years away from us!

[@Amon-Ko]

So... generation 3 stars 'were' short-lived, but that star is still young...

[@jayman7101]

Simple. If scientists find a star older than their understanding of the universes age, it means their idea of the universes age is wrong and they need to rethink their theories

[@surr3al305]

It's clear you didn't watch the video

[@TheOtherSteel]

Wikipedia currently lists the star's age as twelve billion years. The other age values suggested in this video are mentioned, but are clearly noted as having been early estimates based on then-incomplete data.

[@vetinaris1297]

He does get around to that...eventually

[@vetinaris1297]

@@YargGlugthere's none so blind as them that won't see. Always trust random guy from wigan over the weight if scientific evidence and ignore the facts when presented.

[@Elora445]

@@YargGlug Silly response. Wikipedia is fine, as long as you note what their sources are. Should never be used as a source itself in a thesis, though. It's fine for a comment.

[@drewfeld8483]

I don't think that Demi Moore is 12 billion years old yet. But she's not getting any younger.

[@askhams]

Oh, I thought this video was about Bruce Forsyth

[@Canalcoholic]

I never could get my head around the reason for the existence of Bruce, Cilla Black, wasps or lettuce.

[@BarryTGash]

Nice to see ya, to see ya nice.

[@Jones_to_Bear]

I think one of the biggest problems that we have in understanding the universe is that we have absolutely no idea about any of it. Not a single clue. It was said best when someone said that the way scientists try to understand the universe is the exact same way that someone would try to understand how books become books all the way back to the growing of the tree that made the paper… by reading the contents of the book. Reading Harry Potter does not teach you how a book is written, in the same way that you cannot understand the full workings of the universe by looking at poor quality pictures of stars a long way away.

[@janisozols2055]

There are many ways to read book, even with microscope and chemical technologies. Since paper contains DNA fragments of tree, by extracting and reading that - you can definitely come to some more trustworthy conclusions. It all depends of or technological advancement and ability to read.

[@Jones_to_Bear]

@@janisozols2055 you completely missed the point of the analogy. We don’t have microscopes and chemical technologies thousands of light years away. All we have to go on is what it looks like through a telescope. Everything down to the star and planets makeup is a guess based on our accumulated knowledge, and elements that we know of, which is next to nothing. They are literally watching a black dot moving across a white dot (an almost invisible planet moving across its star), and trying to guess its elemental makeup based on how quickly it moves across… assuming that we already know every single element in the universe… which we simply can’t. Essentially trying to understand how a book is made by reading the words printed in it. Science is about theorising and testing, which is how we learn. But recently we have begun this bizarre path where we have to believe everything they tell us without question regardless of how accurate their information. “We know how the stars work!” “We know what dinosaurs looked like!” You don’t know shit… and that’s absolutely fine, you just have to be honest about it.

[@janisozols2055]

@@Jones_to_Bear, "We don’t have microscopes and chemical technologies thousands of light years away." We don`t need to - we can see it and measure things from Earth. And it is even easier with space, because we see how things looked in the past. "We don’t have microscopes and chemical technologies thousands of light years away. " That is even not close to truth. By measuring the spectrum of light you can get so much information.

[@Jones_to_Bear]

@@janisozols2055 yes and no. Yes you can tell a lot by light spectrums and whatnot, but the scientists can only create theories based on knowledge they already have from here today, because we can’t test for literally anything that could be used to create new theories and get any closer to the actual truth. You have come close to my point though. Yes there are ways of interpreting some of the information contained in the book as to how bits and pieces of it were created… but YOU CAN’T FIND OUT HOW A BOOK IS MADE BY DISTANT OBSERVATION ALONE. I don’t get why this confuses you so much. Socrates said “true knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing”, and for science, everything that you “know” today will and should be proven wrong tomorrow. Science has become a byword for propaganda, and the amount of blind faith people have is extremely disturbing. Every prediction about climate change has been proven wrong, every step to prevent the spread of Covid and the vaccinations were proven wrong, how they believe they pyramids were built has been continually proven wrong but they still stick steadfastly to the narrative. The chances of the Big Bang theory being true are astronomically small, but if you question it and the other things I mentioned, you are considered a lunatic. Again, science is about formulating theories and challenging them. If you can’t question theories, they become propaganda.

[@AllHandlesHaveBeenTaken]

Claiming to be able age a star is as ludicrous as the big bang theory

[@404Limit]

(this comment was not for you it was for the video creator, but sharing with you because you use your brain it appears) Hey bud if you are trying to sound smart why not be correct? At 4:30 ish you say Bigger suns or Larger suns have more gravity (twice). "Larger or Bigger" suns do not have more gravitational pull. Objects with more MASS, have more gravitational pull. It has nothing to do with the size bud. For instance put a gold bar on your bed and put a beach volley ball on your bed and let me know what you observe. Right after that you also go on to talk about how larger stars have more fuel supplies, but that is also another falsehood because different stars have different fuel supplies and anyone who has been to a gas station can understand that. Diesel gets your much more millage than gas. Also some fuels burn fast and some slower than others and not to mention some lights do not need a "fuel". Come on I am a grade 5 dropout and I think more than you, if you are going to try to educate people at least be correct, thanks. Also I explain what the scientist cannot on the channel Unitwon on bit chute, as yt has deleted my video of the truth about space, also the universe size is the inverse of the Planck length not some made up magical number by nasa. Also black holes do not bend light, electromagnetic fields do. Photons do not have mass. Bunch of mankeys my species is.

[@Ironhand187]

😂 That's because there was no big bang that started this universe. Also I sure hope scientists are taking time into their calculations

[@eccentricshaun7637]

Plot twist: We found God.

[@tylerlormand5644]

no you didnt ........and you never will

[@txeazy]

@@tylerlormand5644don’t be mad 😁

[@tylerlormand5644]

@@txeazy mad i am not ,sure i am

[@DrexProjects]

@Thoughty2 : About your "Magicmind" product: You state it is "First Party Tested". First party is the person self-attesting that he or she is competent. Second party is someone related to the person (trainer/instructor/employer) declaring that the person is competent. Third party would require an entirely independent party to declare the person competent. And this is exactly what certification body is supposed to be. A certification body for persons is an independent, third party that attests that a person meets the competency requirements of a scheme. They have no interest in the outcome of the certification assessment process, nor do they have any type of relationship with the person being assessed. So I could make a substance in my basement and say it is First Party Tested. I would not trust any First Party Tested. If I were you I would stop drinking that snake oil. Thanks for reading.

[@EccoCastTV]

Please stop using AI for thumbnails

[@tarrantwolf]

Why?

[@bastiaan7777777]

@@tarrantwolf Because it f*ing sucks he changes it 20 x per video

[@flexygoo1295]

​@@tarrantwolfit does indeed suck. His glasses have no frames, and....what is happening in the picture? Explain it. What's he looking at and what does it have to do with the subject matter? It's a stupid picture worthy of ridicule

[@EccoCastTV]

@tarrantwolf I will admit it was a bit of an outburst of a comment. But I'll give more of a concise answer. I have been subscribed to the channel since the year he started. I subbed for his seemingly genuine hard work. Just brings me down when there's a lack of passion or care for the work. Ai is just that. A lack of passion or care for the work. It was through the creators dedication that his channel succeeded in my opinion.

[@dolliberate]

I agree. I have mostly stopped clicking on his videos because of it.

[@jim6170]

wow so i wasted my time.. cool

[@geoart_]

Your mom still older

[@TayWoode]

And fatter 😂

[@Defensive_Wounds]

15:56 - Meaning of life, the universe and everything. Beyond the number 42!

[@drewfeld8483]

I like the way you think.

[@neilg6675]

How is it possible for us to observe a galaxy 33.6billion light years away? Light has only had 13.7 billion years to get here, even if the galaxy was directly moving away at the speed of light it wouldn't have got that far away if everything started from a single point. So I can't see how light could have travelled to earth from that galaxy yet

[@jarred_ryan]

So they kept bringing the number down based on more "accurate data" until it conformed to the story that doesn't destroy the foundation for most modern day science. Seems legit.

[@spacemissing]

The universe doesn't care what we know or think of it, and it doesn't owe us any explanations. if something we discover about it fails to make sense, it's our problem to solve. We presenty know very little compared to what we don't know.

[@legupff]

Listening to Scientific theory stacked upon scientific theory always makes me think of playing Jenga.

[@williamschlosser]

Try Plasma Cosmology. No mathematical kludges like DM, DE and inflation needed.

[@Rich-hm9ux]

This is the story of how modern science keeps being proved wrong.

[@davidharrison6535]

The JWST has said that the universe is way older than the faulty 13.7 billion figure

[@zachwilliams2597]

Most scientists are extremely stubborn and absolutely despise anything that challenges their beliefs. so they have to come up with new calculations to support them instead. Its entirely possible that most of what we know is wrong.

[@Chickenfriedstek]

The best explaination.... scientists are wrong about their theory of the universe's beginning, age, and physics involved.

[@williamschlosser]

Try Plasma Cosmology, the only self-contained physical theory of the universe. BBT isn't a physical theory based on observation, but a curve-fitting theory using mathematical kludges (DM, DE, inflation).

[@Dmoles]

Scientists have been proving previous scientists wrong since the beginning of science. It’s just as likely that there was no beginning to the universe and they can’t argue that theory…yet they will say with such certainty that it’s 13.7 billion years old anyway. If they want funding they need to come up with something that sounds like an answer, so there it is.

[@Plutonia001]

Well, according to relativity, gravity affects the flow of time. If that star has had the hobby of orbiting black holes and repeatedly avoiding ever falling into them somehow, then it has traveled far into the future relative to the universe around it.

[@storyteller-1962]

This reminds me of an existential nightmare I came up with called "internal collision theory" It works as so: If it has happened once, it can happen again. The big bang happened once. If something has happened once and can happen again, then the big bang can happen again, and possibly has happened before. Essentially, a big bang can happen anywhere beyond where we can see, and thus cant perceive it yet or its light has long since passed, but it could also happen within our own visible universe, theoretically colliding with our stars as we slow and cool down. Internal collision theory has a bit more to it, and I dont remember it all off the top of my head, but I can elaborate on it later if you have questions about it.

[@treyweaver5396]

Great vid. MD for 30 years but have always been interested in most areas of STEMM. I remember the story about this star. Keep up the good work dude!

[@rolyantrauts2304]

Are we not in a confusing period where new discoveries, lack of unifying quantum to standard model that accepted science from the big bang to dark matter has so many problems that what we assume could be totally missing a fundemental?

[@williamschlosser]

It's fundamentally wrong.

[@DfsOutlier]

It couldn't possibly be that scientists are wrong about the age of the universe, right?

[@LeDuddu]

This just implies that we need to be verifying the age of every celestial body on and on again. Basically, whenever a new measurement model appears or an old one improves, it renders all „known” star ages obsolete. This is our science. A theory becomes prevalent, then becomes norm, then becomes pop culture, then becomes hard to change, since we base many other theories on it being true. We know SO little!

[@dgamble35]

Maybe our scientists Don't know everything. What a concept.

[@williamschlosser]

The problem isn't what they don't know. The problem is stuff they know that's actually wrong.

[@pinguino55h40]

no scientist should claim to know everything, because we don't, even the stuff we somewhat understand is 'right' until proven otherwise, it is just nice to talk about it as if we perfectly knew but there is always the slightest possibility we are wrong