Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
New study just made the "crisis in cosmology" WORSE
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 08. 2024
- Go to brilliant.org/... to get a 30-day free trial and the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual subscription! The so called “crisis in cosmology” (or Hubble tension) is the biggest problem in astrophysics right now, with two main methods for calculating the expansion rate of the Universe, which completely disagree with eac†teemh other. This month a new study came out pointing out that the Milky Way is found in the Laniakea supercluster of galaxies, a very dense part of the Universe. This throws off our measurements of the velocities with which galaxies appear to be moving away from us due to the expansion rate of the Universe, and if you take this into account properly, you end up making the “crisis in cosmology” WORSE than before…
And yeah, w’re all aware this doesn’t exactly constitute a real crisis.
Giani et al. (2023; Laniakea supercluster effect on the Hubble constant) - arxiv.org/pdf/...
Tully et al. (2014; discovery of Laniakea supercluster) - arxiv.org/pdf/...
Yuan et al. (2022; first JWST results on “biased bright” standard candles) - arxiv.org/pdf/...
JWST proposal 1995, Freedman et al. - www.stsci.edu/...
JWST proposal 1685, Riess et al. - www.stsci.edu/...
My previous videos on the crisis in cosmology - • The Crisis in Cosmology
00:00 - Introduction: what’s the “crisis in cosmology”?
03:10 - What is the Laniakea cluster and why is it important?
05:58 - How much does Laniakea affect the rate of expansion you measure?
09:06 - Caveats on this research
10:34 - Upcoming JWST data that should solve the “crisis”
11:40 - Outro
12:06 - Brilliant
13:23 - Bloopers
#crisisincosmology #hubbletension #JWST
Video filmed with a Sony Alpha 7 IV
---
📚 My new book, "A Brief History of Black Holes", out NOW in hardback, e-book and audiobook (which I narrated myself!): hyperurl.co/DrB...
---
📚 "The Year In Space" celebrating all things space in 2022 from me and the rest of the Supermassive Podcast team: geni.us/jNcrw
---
👕 My new merch, including JWST designs, are available here (with worldwide shipping!): dr-becky.teemi...
LAST SHIPPING DATES FOR CHRISTMAS:
AUSTRALIA & NZ: 30th November 2023
AFRICA & ASIA: 4th December 2023
EU: 8th December 2023
USA & CANADA: 9th December 2023
UK: 18th December 2023 (Priority shipping 20th December 2023)
---
🎧 Royal Astronomical Society Podcast that I co-host: podfollow.com/supermassive
---
🔔 Don't forget to subscribe and click the little bell icon to be notified when I post a new video!
---
👩🏽💻 I'm Dr. Becky Smethurst, an astrophysicist at the University of Oxford (Christ Church). I love making videos about science with an unnatural level of enthusiasm. I like to focus on how we know things, not just what we know. And especially, the things we still don't know. If you've ever wondered about something in space and couldn't find an answer online - you can ask me! My day job is to do research into how supermassive black holes can affect the galaxies that they live in. In particular, I look at whether the energy output from the disk of material orbiting around a growing supermassive black hole can stop a galaxy from forming stars.
drbecky.uk.com
rebeccasmethur...
I love how you can make such complex topics understandable for us non-astrophysicists.
The stars never lose that magic.
Keep on being awesome.
Agreed! Understandable and without math... lol
Its said people who understand subjects well, even complex can make it understandable and perhaps interesting for someone who arent into it, or kids. Perhaps even making a person more curious, resulting in wanting to learn more. And not having to use fancy words many never use nor even heard, or unnecessary complexity is maybe a better way to put it.. Good teacher can for example do this, kinda a art. Kinda funny when a teacher with 1 sentence make a entire subject understandable, like a "aha" moment and it all makes sense. To bad most teachers werent like this when i went to school, not that i claim its all teachers fault. Just a impression. Maybe they are locked, must follow the book and set goals for tests.. Ending up with topics that are interesting are boring and dry as f in school. Maybe things have improved, but kinda doubt much has changed. Have experienced this a few times, subject i didnt understand (not that i tried my best at school) just to end up as one of the best after asking and getting one sentence as replie. Teaching is a art we kinda undervalue as a society.
Im babbling... xD
*lose
lose*. fix it.
gay
I like how all of the last papers I've heard about on the subject were ultimately trying to "fix" the problem but just ended up making it worse
You have to know what you don't know, or what you don't know correctly. Ya know?
That's how you fix it!
@@obsidianjane4413 We know, and I think you know that we know, and we know that you know that we know...and knowing is half the battle.
That is the nature of a great deal of scientific work
Have I ever told you the definition of insanity?
I wonder how long will they continue doing that until they realize they need to reexamine the very basics of the current "mainstream" theory of cosmology.
I had a momentary epiphany of the scale of the problem while looking at the artistic rendering of the Laniakea Supercluster (3:50). I reasoned that with the huge distances involved, and forgetting for a moment that it’s not an actual photograph, it never truly looked that that at any point in history, ever. We’re looking at a continuously blurry 3D image of space that looks in focus when you gather light at a single instant of time onto a 2D surface. Sounds like an absolute nightmare.
It's called psychosis, bro. I am living inside your walls. I am living inside your walls. I am living inside your walls. I am living inside your walls. I am living inside your walls. I am living inside your walls. I am living inside your walls. I am living inside your walls. I am living inside your walls. I am living inside your walls. I am living inside your walls. I am living inside your walls.
@@AlexLococo well get out >:(
@@adora_was_taken Can't, I'm stuck. :(
In that same vein, when you look at a deep field picture, you are seeing different points in time in a 2d picture. Some objects are much further away than others.
Loved this. It never clicked with me before that the large structures in the universe imply that the expansion of the universe could be inhomogeneous. Wow.
heterogeneous :)
@@aaront3049 👍
If the universe expanded smoothly from the big bang, then everything everywhere should be a thin hydrogen gas. It's weird that we have any complex structures at all.
@@kahlzun There is no singular Big Bang, otherwise the universe would be radially symmetrical.
@@kahlzun No. It wouldn't even be hydrogen.
Aside... I *love* that you give us 'bullet-points' of "what you're going to tell us" followed by "telling us" followed by"telling us what you just told us".
Classic "How to do a presentation" stuff - good work Dr B :)
The basic art of instruction.
@@robertwagner2079 That's what I was taught _so_ many years ago! And Dr B does it perfectly.
I have a bit of info that people might like to know or maybe not, do what you like with it but here it goes, most people that are scientist do not believe in the creator, if you are one of those people, you can stop reading, this is not for you.... back maybe 12 to 15 yrs ago my wife could do some amazing things and this was by speaking to people that have passed and she spole to them like you would talk to someone in front of you, she seen them as they appeared and some were from the 1800's and beyond, in fact' I will go so far to say some were native americans that were here before the eu showed up and after, it was when I learned true history, all the claims about the early settlers was a lie, maybe they did show them how to survive here in the US but in the end they killed all the indians along the east coast for the trade that was here when they arrived. in NH a top a mountain there is the leader of the east coast tribe. anyways, I have gotten off what I was going to say and if you go to Mudfossil University on yt and watch some of his vids you will learn much, but about space, when you pass over, you are able to see it but, you are not allowed to go there. I got that from my Mom who had passed. you don't understand some things that people say, it does not make it untrue, I know who did 9/11, I knew the day before it happen that something was coming and what was involved, an energy weapon was used and yes there is a base on the moon. everything you see in space is biology. same as some as the giant statues you see on earth. someone does not want you knowing the truth, people are very smart but under attack by a global power that wants you and your family gone. the NWO is very real and it is the reason the middle east war happen, to remove people from power that did not agree with the future NWO plans, you think the Russian's are fighting because they want Ukraine? the USA had 12 to 15 bio weapons labs in Ukraine. that is who Russia is fighting, the NWO, they want the USA and Canada gone, why do you think they are spraying chems on their heads and had the likes of MONSANTO killing people with cancer. we live in a world where weather warfare is real and is going on, katrina was a manmade storm just like the tidal wave that killed 230k in Aisa. Georgia guidestone destroyed this past summer, do you know why or what they read?..
I hate this presentation structure it s so repetitive and boring
@@nohome12 Repetition is how you get people to remember.
You are such a fantastic science communicator. Please continue making videos like this. Cosmology is better with you in it
One of my favourite science communicators for sure! Im not sure if it helps that im a biomedic by trade so im perfectly in the lay man territory for cosmology (compared to biology science videos which feel like they dont dig deep enough..) but either way, always excited to see Becky videos pop up!
@@C-RENITY Isn't she also responsible for the other two best channels ever, History of the Universe and History of the Earth? She is a genius science communicator!
@@C-RENITYI actually have a PhD in cosmology, and she is significantly better at communicating things than many professors I've had. Max Tegmark and Martin White should take notes
@nlharring thats really nice to hear to be honest! Thats great science comms if its pretty much enjoyed by all
@@ggtt2547no, afaik those two channels belong to someone totally not connected to dr Becky. Besides, I love to listen to the History of the Universe, but they don't go as deep into the topics. Dr. Becky always backs her videos with the latest research papers.
There is a third channel, History of the world which I also love but its aimed at history buffs.
Love this stuff. Even when I get lost in the maths, LOL! So, lighting issues? Glow away, I say! And thank you for the exuberance, passion, & grit you bring to this work.
Dr. Becky:
I am a long retired Professor of Electro-Optics/Plasma physics and Quantum Electrodynamics at Stanford University, Stanford CA
Your videos are a most pleasant presentation of a subject of enormous interest to me and obviously to vast number of others.
I want to "Thank you" ever so much for providing so many of us around the world with current updates on such an important subject, besides merely dumb old physicists.
It is a double pleasure to have such a wonderful presentation made by such a fabulously beautiful Lady as you are. I may be an old man physically but mentally I most definitely appreciate seeing such a beautiful Lady. Thank you yet again.
General G.G., USMC
The natural light looks very good indeed, and the thought of sitting around in the light from a window chatting about space with a bunch of friends is lovely!!
and where is the BUT? (notice ONE T only)
Dr. Becky, you make it pretty easy for us lay people to understand the complicated things of cosmology. I love all things space related but especially cosmology. BTW, the light looks great today!
Who says you can't understand ad well as she kr male contributions?
Well done for making a cosmology video that is not clickbait - yes, you used a punchy title as a hook but then - unlike so many channels - you actually made an excellent video about the subject from start to finish with little or no padding. The success of this channel is very well deserved. I’ve subscribed.
well done you....
I chose the video because it had a human name and face on it. I guess it will not be long till the clickbaiters emulate that too.
She's already married
@@timgibson3754 They're always open to a change up...
The great thing about the cosmos is that it doesn't give a shit how we think it works.
Correct and well said.
Not a doctor of physics but rather a medical doctor, but just want to say my guilty pleasure is astrophysics and cosmology. Loved the book Dr Smethurst!!! Audiobook was truly thrilling finally got round to listening to it😁!
Not a doctor, but i DO have elevated liver values. However, i'm a fan of astrophysics as well!
Not a Doctor of physics but did enjoy Dr Pepper as a teen, but just want to say my guilty pleasure is astrophysics and cosmology.
@@MrKeplertonlol
‘Tis all science - we just don’t know the finer complications of life ‘caused by astrophysics’ yet; whereas we do have a little understanding of gross effects like the propagation of elements that are ‘heavier’ than iron. I believe that eventually humankind will find some of this out - if we as a species or a future subspecies that becomes dominant will last that long…
Not a doctor of physics but I did stay at a red roof inn, when the big bang first happened.
I love how the science community does not shy away from the truth, when it makes their own field so much more difficult. Can't wait for the next development in this debate ... your videos are great.
Yeah it's really hard to argue with facts unless you're a feminist!😅 yeah I shouldn't have mixed politics with science. 😊
Difficult? No - exciting. Scientists love to have their models go wrong. Think of all the new grants and tenures on the horizon.
@@johnrathbun2943 yeah you are right, you shouldn't have (espacially when it is just a random claim), BUT it is good for messing with the algorithm - someone will have to say something about that...
@@johnrathbun2943 Yeah you really shouldn't have
Indeed! This is one of the MANY strengths about science and some scientists. When some scientists come across evidence that proves them WRONG, they actually get excited because this may well point them to New Physics! And potentially a Nobel Prize at the end of it!
Can't quite think of many human endeavours in which the pursuit of the Truth is sooo paramount, that being wrong is actually valued and cherished!
Honestly, I wish more public accounts of astronomy and other sciences included the nuance you've provided here.
I'm literally calculating H_0 right now in my master's program using SN Ia measurements we took with our meter scope. This is an appropriately timed video for me!
Mess with your Profs, suggest heterogeneous expansion in different regions of the universe. It may explain why the CMB is not uniform acutally.
As I understand it, the universe is acceleratingly expanding. That means that the rate of expanse is increasing in time. That would demand that the local rate of expansion would be close to the current rate of expansion, and the CMB derived rate of expansion would be closer to the past rate of expansion. These rates should not be the same. Why is this a crisis?
@@davidletsch3198 The CMB derived one isn't a past one. It's also a present rate that you based on a model of the universe you simulate forward to the present time from the known state at the moment of the Last Scattering, from when the CMB we see is.
@@avroarchitect1793That makes the most sense to me. Faster expansion in some regions than others. It's counter-intuitive to think it is more or less symmetrical.
This is all so very interesting, I love watching about people trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe on the very edge of our understanding. I am so excited what this will lead to.
"JWST going into its second year" - That info hit me really hard! I still feel like it was no longer than a couple of months ago it got launched >_
I feel old.
I like that this 'crisis" has gotten more problematic, especially when the breathtaking Laniakea SuperCluster is involved, as it does, and because it means it's closer to being solved by exposing its problems at a seemingly faster rate than say decades and eras of science. Good news all around!
why does it mean that...? i could show you a wheel of changing colors, and speed it up, and this doesn't mean that it will finally settle on one particular color.
@@TheAlison1456Well, yeah, in your world but...
@@Vicus_of_Utrecht not in my world, yes! You get it! 😉 🌌
The biggest issue in the crisis in cosmology is that it is assumed that space expands at a constant rate. This is based on Einsteins assertion that space always has the same amount of energy, therefore it pushes outwards at the same rate. It seems to me that the cosmological constant is not a constant at all, but a function of the distribution of energy and mass over space/time. This constant/function should have a tendency to go towards 1. This is because below 1, the universe will eventually contract. This breaks entropy. And above 1, the universe keeps accelerating its expansion, so where does all the energy for that come from? This would break conservation of energy. I think the energy needed for the expansion comes from light. As the universe expands, light also expands, loosing energy, so there's an interaction between light and space. But ive never heard any cosmologists say this. Would be a neat way to solve the crisis though.
The expansion rate is not assumed to be a constant, that is a big misconception and astronomers prefer the term 'Hubble parameter'. The expansion rate was much faster billions of years ago and has been slowing since the big bang but is expected to start increasing again due to dark energy.
Hiii i just wanted to say that your videos has given me soo much motivation to study and get good grades to achieve my future goal(i wanna be an astrophysicist just like u)thank u for making really amazing and interesting content ur videos r just making me be more fascinated by the wonders of the universe 😊
Hope you learn to write like an adult using punctuation. Otherwise, you're not going anywhere.
@@user-dh6bj2me5pI hope you learn to not judge others' academic work based on their CZcams comments. Or at least to keep your judgement to yourself.
That's so cool! Best of luck to you, it's not an easy path
@@hive_indicator318 Just say, "I defend and support ignorant illiteracy."
Make better choices.
@@user-dh6bj2me5p English isn't their first language, how many languages do you know?
It would be nice if Time was mentioned more in discussions on cosmology because it's such a massive factor. The supercluster isn't something we can visualise in a snapshot of time because we see the galaxies as they were millions of years ago all at different times so perhaps the 3-d visualisation needs to be 4-d and running forwards in time. Time just doesn't seem to be included in the explanations. When things are so far apart are we noticing what time in the past our current observations are looking at, and how much earlier or later the other objects are appearing from. I suppose their positions and velocities are then extrapolated in time to see how they really were related to each other at some 'simultaneous' point in time.
Is gravity affected by time as well? I mean is the current acceleration due to the mass of an object based on where it is right now or on where it was some tiny bit of time in the past? If gravitational waves travel at the speed of light does that mean the gravity of an object is also taking time to have its effect? I thought general relativity meant something like that. It would make no difference if the massive object is not moving (ie is the centre of mass of a system) or changing mass, then the gravitational field would be the same at different times. But then it's so complicated with multi-body systems which can get so complex. I don't know how they work it out for whole galaxies whether using Newton's laws or Einstein's or any other theory of gravity, especailly with the time factor involved and differences of tens or hundreds of thousands of years between what we observe on each side of one galaxy! It's hard to comprehend such scales of distance and time. We are so small...!
That's a good point and I'm sure astronomers take that into account and maybe it is just a part of the error bar calculations for large volume data like this, like binned over comoving or proper distance. Would be nice to see a video about this. I've not read much about how data is handled in large galaxy surveys. After a quick look I've found out that, at least some, surveys are calibrated over 'luminosity distance space', as well as 'comoving distance space', which would of course make sense but I don't know anything much about all the statistical analysis.
Videos like this make me wish I'd gone into something like astrophysics. This is so, _so_ much more interesting than building the same website for some client for the 98th time...
And people said that I was a conspiracy theorist for saying that the age of the universe is not a settled topic. People think that we know everything about how the world works, yet consistently scientists are forced to point out that the "experts" were wrong and that actual science isn't a finished product. Sadly most people don't have a healthy education in the philosophy of science.
I just discovered your Channel this past week and I have already watched hours and hours of your videos ! Your excitement and joy for these topics and studies is amazing ! I have learned a lot from your videos , so thank you fo that and keep up the great work! (From the state of Iowa in the United States)
For the first time in my life I'm excited about soon-to-be-released research papers. Thanks Dr Becky!
I had the privilege to attend a conference by Hélène Courtois about the discovery of Laniakea. This retrospectively puts it in a whole new perspective! Is it safe to say we're facing a sort of Cherenkov radiation effect, but on cosmic scale?
When you were explaining the use of assumption of the ellipsoid shape I immediately wondered if with new parallel processing or some other macro data computation tools it’s possible to model the motions more accurately?
We could assume that the ellipsoid kiwi has bananas too
I often wish there is a way to flip the spectrums of light - where all of the dark matter is visible, and all other matter is dark or somewhat transparent in comparisom.
That's what really happens when the lights go out and the sun goes down. And that last joint that was laced with ketamine may be helping my brain activity.
Simple, "dark matter" is science fiction
Then well all be in the dark. Let the dark stuff be dark
Dark matter is a simple placeholder, nothing else. It's a made-up concept that allows us to continue using the general theory of relativity when our galactic-scale observational data doesn't fit the theory. We can say it's something that only interacts with gravity because that's what we need it to be in order to cling to general relativity as it stands. This is the point in science when we're supposed to be rejecting or modifying our theory, not making up exotic particles because we can't think of a better explanation.
@Anonymous-cc5pn Another way to say this is that we want to keep general relativity viable, and the only way we can think of to do that is if there's some exotic particle that doesn't interact with EM fields, only with gravity. So let's say hypothetically that it actually exists. Or we could look at the theory itself.
Option 3: The universe is a simulation and the Admin is starting to get really annoyed that we keep finding flaws in their program.
Really though, great video. I'm super curious what the actual solution will be.
If the universe were a simulation, Josh would have broken it by now.
Are we in the BETA version?
@@scarfhs1 Nah, it's still in Alpha and is expected to reach Omega any time soon ...
I love how people act like simulation theory is new. It's just creationism with a new name lmfao
just think that one of my favorite SciFi authors, Philip Josè Farmer, had this same idea in 1965!
Could these divergent results be telling us that the assumption that these two methods are measuring the same thing in different ways is wrong? That's kind of exciting to be able to investigate why they are not equivalent
That would be the rational scientific explanation. That the rate of expansion is the same is, after all, just a simplifying model assumption. It's not motivated by anything in the theory. If these measurements keep diverging and more evidence can be added to back them up, then we are looking at yet another revolution in precision cosmology. I agree that this would be very exciting. Personally I would love to see that.
The idea that all supernova are the same brightness seems highly unlikely.
I love you Becky; you make all the big things in astrophysics accessible and digestible. Believe it or not, that is more important than being academically precise and thorough. Most people do not have the time, patience or aptitude to read scientific papers; yet things that most people take zero interest in makes little progress in human civilizations. Broadening the attention base is much more important than you think!
Yes, definitely curtains open :)
In other news, when ever I hear of the Crisis, my first thought as a mechanical person, is are we making some basic mistake in a measurement. I know the universe is a lot more complicated than I can get my head around. I do find the subject fascinating, and I enjoy your enthusiasm! Thank you!
I agree with all the accolades. I remember Carl Sagan and his Cosmos series and thinking how amazing he was at breaking down complex subjects so the common lay person could understand it. I dare to say that Dr. Becky is giving Carl a serious run for his title of Best Science Communicator! Thank you for all you do, you really make my day with your podcasts.
There seems to me to be too many assumptions used to infer distance. But like you, I'm not an astronomy expert, so maybe those assumptions are justified and I just haven't seen the proofs of them. I do like that there is clearly an issue, because it will force them to go back over those asumptions to make sure they are bullet proof, and they have to reconcile this difference. One method or the other, or maybe both, are somewhat flawed in some way though.
@@MrGundawindyRight. Every time I see a video like these, especially since Dr Becky has covered this a few times, I'm closer to grasping the situation! "What if the Standard Candle" is wrong" ?
@@CarlinComm The standard candle might need re-calibration, but what I'd like to see more of is research challenging our ideas of gravity. Our observations don't fit the current theories (either general relativity or Newtonian). Normally in science that means we reject or modify the theory. Instead of doing that, we add these placeholders - dark matter and dark energy - and assume they are real things in order to keep our current theories intact. Our observations on the galactic and intergalactic scales are inconsistent with current gravitational theories. So yeah, we need to validate our observations as needed, but I think we need to stop seeing general relativity as complete and unassailable.
@@beenaplumber8379I'm definitely not qualified to be in this discussion, but since I started it... haha I love how Dr Becky says it, If this is wrong, and we can prove it, then we can go learn something new, or something like that! From what I know of the idea of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, right, I agree with you, they were meant as place holders until we could figure out what was really going on. The good news, we can easily get to Mars, Jupiter, our own neighborhood based on Newtonian physics, so reasonably speaking, we're good for our lifetimes. We won't be doing interstellar exploring for probably another 100 years. So we can keep putting up space telescopes, asking better questions, learning as we go, and we're not really hurting anyone if we're off a few billion years or light years. Of all the Crisis we deal with, this is the least threatening. I'm totally ok with that. And I sincerely someone smarter than us comes along and drops some really cool crumbs to keep us entertained!
we will never be able to tell if we live in a high density spot.
It's hard to imagine how this problem can get any worse. After all, the correction needed to alter the slowing expansion of the universe into the accelerating ditto was 10 to the power of 114, causing them to invent "dark energy". Imagine you could get away with that on your SAT. "Just a small correct, alright?"
Love these videos, keep them coming! Science is awesome!
Can you get one these researchers on the show and ask them what motivated them to do this study and what were hoping to find? It would be interesting to hear their take on this issue which they seem to have made worse!
By the way, the image and shape of Laniakea is just awesome and mind-blowing!
Presumably they were hoping it would make things better, or at least other people have hoped that and they wanted to check.
No offense to the original researchers, but I feel like Dr Becky’s translation of those questions would be better delivered and clearer than hearing it directly from the sources themselves
I am one of them and I agree, dr. Becky did a great job!
The whole expension of universe seems so absurd so for me...don't think that's true 😂
@@tomusic8887 like NdT says, the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you! 🤷🏻♂️
I noticed it right away...Love the glow. Merry, Happy Christmas from the U.S.
When applying a model to the cosmic microwave background are they assuming an even expansion? If so that could be the problem. What if the rate of expansion is a constant, but since the rate at which time flows is dependant on mass it varies? Additionally, when it comes to the observational models, the speed of light may be constant in a vacuum, but if the flow of time itself is not constant the time it takes for light to travel between two points should also vary.
This is also my answer to other cosmological questions like a star that's somehow older than the Universe. Not a problem because some regions of the universe can be older than others. Even if the entire universe came into existence at the same time different regions will be older than others by virtue of the fact that time doesn't flow the same everywhere.
Time slows down the closer you are to a region of gravity, but this isn't just a property of black holes. This applies to all gravitational forces. Einstein called this a gravitational time dilation. This is also way mass increases as an o The closer you are to the center of the Earth the slower time moves. The only reason why Satellites experience slower time than an object on the surface of the Earth is because they are also in motion and that motion results in a greater increase in mass compared to a stationary object on the surface.
Ahh, but these are minor differences right? Well, consider these values:
Rotation of the Earth: 1037 mph.
Rotation of the Earth around the Sun: 67,000 mph
Rotation of the Sun around the Galactic Center: 536,965 mph
Movement of the Milky Way Galaxy towards Andromeda: 249,791.219 mph
Movement of the Local Group of Galaxies: 390 miles per second
That means that, right now, you are moving more than a thousand miles an hour in one direction, and 67,000 miles an hour in another direction, and nearly 537,000 mph in another direction, and nearly 250,000 mph in another direction, and 23,400 mph in another direction. All the time.
Since all of these forces are acting on us time for us moves significantly slower than in a void. A void between galaxies would still be within the gravity well of the local group of galaxies, but won't be within the gravity well created by the mass and movement of galaxies and everything within them.
Now, if we assume gravitational time dilation, can this answer the crisis? Even if it would require a level of time dilation significantly more than what is currently expected this could still potentially answer the question. If you assume that a given value is constant you can either question if the constant is accurate or look to the dependant variables.
I absolutely loved the natural light while I tried to understand space 🚀 amazing work love your content ♥️ definitely look forward to your new videos
I feel the Bloopers are going to be great ! And yes, I did like the light, more broad and not so focused as the other ones. !
The light seems good to me.
Thanks for these updates on research!! Feels so good to grasp what's going on with my colleagues from a nearby field, your clarity is fantastic! And I loved the light today 😊👏
"Immediately sit down ..."
Time to air out and/or vacuum (outside) the chair, or seat cover(s)? And update the room air cleaner/purifier?
Thanks, Dr. Becky. I love the subject of galaxy superclusters, something so massive and distant, and the fact that they are gravitationally bound even with the distance separating the individual members is amazing. The amount of dark matter embedded in Laniakea must be stupendous. Thanks for your constant videos, I always look forward to them.
BTW, your camera and lighting today are spot on, not too much reflection and bright spots on your face. Very warm and balanced.
It's not totally bound. With current estimates for dark energy, everything beyond our local group will eventually recede beyond the cosmic horizon. Our local group will have merged into a single galaxy by then, though.
I like the idea of being in a supercluster because it'd be really disappointing if we were in a void.
dark matter is theoretical bs
@fwiffo our local group is gravitationally bound ,mostly due to the Milky Way and Andromeda. Likewise, the mass of Laniakea could equally be gravitationally bound. Google the great attractor.
@@miaya3898 The speed of rotation of the Milky Way and other spiral galaxies can only be explained by hidden or dark matter. There are other indicators.
Thrilling stuff. I was hooked to watch immediately by the new study “made things worse.” Thank you for another informative video.
Thanks for an informative video. I followed in my great grandfather's (Harlow Shapley) chosen career into astronomy. It's nice to see someone passionate about their work who is also very clear in their explanations - it bodes well for the future of science
Sigh. I know I'm not a scientist. I was a network engineer. I built networks, not scientific models. But it seems to me that if the model predictions don't fit observed data, then the chances heavily favor the model being wrong, or incomplete.
Instead of cosmologists assuming the model is wrong and trying to come up with a new model that actually fits the data, I see them trying to revise their observations to fit the model... and failing. So... why aren't they saying "Hold up. Something is wrong here. Maybe we should rethink this approach, scrap the model, and work to verify our existing data until we have something we KNOW is good. THEN work on a new model."
I'm sure there are any number of people who are gonna tell me I'm an idiot though.
We aren't fitting models to observations on a whim because that only leads to epicycles. It is absolutely crucial to challenge every observation in every possible way first. That takes a lot of effort, but it also assures us that we didn't make any mistakes. We wouldn't have any problems to build these results into general relativity, of course. One can easily parametrize the cosmological constant and make it a function of cosmological time, average density etc.. That's perfectly fine with the structure of the theory. It also leads to absolutely no new insight as far as physics is concerned.
The lighting actually did look better with the curtains open, since you asked! Excited to see if anything changes when the new JWST data gets released.
Dr. Becky, thank you for your time, thoughts, and explanations of very complex subjects, communicated with clarity, and enthusiasm 🫶
Your merch arrived today and I am so pleased! Not only do you create brilliant content but amazing clothes too! I’m in love with my shirt! Thank you Dr Becky for all that you do ❤
I bought your book today! Sommerset West near Cape Town. I am extremely excited! Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
It's definitely better with the curtains open. There's more contrast between the foreground and background, it looks a little warmer, and more natural.
The science, is always great! 😁
This deserves so many more views, great work guys, well presented.
"Have I ever told you the definition of insanity?"
I wonder how long will they continue doing that until they realize they need to reexamine the very basics of the current "mainstream" theory of cosmology.
The crisis in cosmology is subjective pseudoscience where we build physics around models. We used to change the models to match the physics. Now we make physics around models, which is subjective and subjectivity is always wrong. The crisis in cosmology is the James Webb telescope proved Infiniti and MIT is trying to cover it up.
Dr. Becky, your videos are absolutely fantastic! Cosmology is better with you in it! Also, your videos are really helping me get a perspective of cosmology, astrophysics, and other similar fields that I wish to become a part of in the near future! Your videos are really helping me understabd what I wish to be someday, and I thank you for that. Continue making great videos!
We have got to get the Cosmology crisis figured out. I have not been able to sleep since I found out there was a Cosmology Crisis. Let's put this to bed so we can move on the other problems.
Why it the Hubble constant called a "constant"? Why is the expansion of the universe, which we don't really understand anyway, assumed to be constant?
Einstein's cosmological constant was his greatest blunder. But his equations worked suddenly. Why - you can find for any equation a number that "balances" it, but only if you know all the parameters that are to be considered in such equation. And that is the problem - we don't know.
When 'expansion of space' is mentioned is that how far 'across space' something is moving, like a car going down the road, or the ACTUAL CREATION OF SPACE. After all, something 'created' space in the first 'moments' of the birth of the universe.. I assume at the beginning there was 'something' presumably 'mass' of infinite density, and it's 'explosion' ie, it's intial inconceivalbe expansion Was that hanging 'in space' the space that galaxies are now traversing, or did it simply exist outside all norms of space we know. for that matter, time? What was time before expansion / explosion started, infintesimally short or long?
If space itself was a creation during the 'initial expansion' then there seems no reason space itself cannot now still be created. What would adding distance between us and distant objects to do models previously assuming space was a fixed given that existed before everything.
If space is being added, are other 'constants' being adjusted to suite, if the 'distance' light must travel in a year increases due to added space, then the constant at which it travels also has to.
If space and other constants can change, then there is no reason different areas of the universe might not have different constants, rate of new space creation, rate light speed increases.
Given the inconvable forces of the instant of creation, whose equally incomprehensible interactions created our universes constant, is just 10 billion yr or so enough time for them to have totally settled down, no longer having an effect on constants.
What is the current accepted theory, that somehow before expansion of matter all of space for it to expand into was 'created'. If space WAS created, there's no reason it might not still be being c reated and if that basic element of our universe is still not settled, then why should any of it.
While in general, average, overall the universe 'agrees' there could exist areas where some of the primordial effects have been trapped or enhanced by those same effects echoing over time through time and space it created
If so it hints that indeed someday life will understand creation, be able to manipulate it, and thereby end it, all creation, in it's entirely. What might that 'end' state be?. Would the ability to manipulate effects of the creation of the universe result in utter dissolution of matter, time and space into some unfathomable final effect, state, , ultimate aggregation of all matter, time, space, translation into inaccesible alternate reality????
I'm sure I'm full of crap, but surely anyone considering the beginning is just spewing crap that they know just enough to make a comfey almost working formula to expalin it
Thank you for the video. I immediatly asked myself the question: Did their highest (or lowest) estimated value for the perculiar velocities provide enough of a change so that the distance ladder and cmb data matches? Or asking the question the other way around: What value would be required to actually make the two match? Does that yield an even remotely realistic value that we could explain or is it so far fetched that we could dismiss this and something else would be required?
tbh you must be a really good mathematician using amazingly exact data to successfully compare light thats far away (microwave background) and matter that shines light from closer up (galaxies). i Mean It'the lights "age" is completely different. of course you get a discrepency, so much way has been travelled-
@@viktormaximiliandistaturus7660 All physicists are really good at math...part of the job description. By the second or third semester at uni most students can solve complex integrals...
The math that is involved to get the light spectrum is basically a fourier transformation and that is, by physicist standards, not really complicated (even excel can do that). Nobody directly compares the microwave background to something here. They are using this microwave background to fit a model of the early universe and then run this model until today to get the hubble constant and compare that to the value measured based on the spectrum from galaxies.
If you are refering to "tired light", yes that is a theory that aims to explain the difference, but has no been substantiated by data. There is a video on that topic she has made, i believe.
I appreciate your efforts in conveying intricate topics to the laity through your social media channels and podcast, as well as your dedication to professional research. Recently, I borrowed your book, "A Brief History of Black Holes," from my local library. After delving into the prologue and the first chapter, I am convinced that it deserves a permanent spot on my bookshelf. Your talent and credibility, to me, surpasses even that of Michio Kaku or Neil Degrasse Tyson.
I liken Dr. Becky more to Alex Filippenko. Like Dr. Becky, he’s always exhibited that unquenchable, childlike enthusiasm for the science on which he’s expounding, and always had a knack for explaining complex information in a way that makes it understandable to us non-astrophysicists! I’ve long appreciated his use of simple, low-tech methods; for example, tennis balls threaded onto an elastic string which he stretches out to demonstrate how each galactic group “sees” the _other_ galactic groups as moving away from itself due to the expansion of the universe.
It always seems strange that astrophysicists assume that the interactions between galaxies is entirely due to gravity, ignoring any effects of electromagnetism, but use electromagnetism (via the red shift of light) as the foundation stone upon which to build their entire science. I can't imagine engineers doing things that way.
They aren't ignoring electromagnetism, they are ignoring electromagnetic force. The amount of charged matter in the universe is negligible on a galactic scale, and so are it's effects. As you said yourself the entire theory is built on electromagnetism, if they ignored it's effects there wouldn't be a theory in the first place
The answer that you are getting is telling you 3 things 1: the 2 ways of calculation are right , and 2: You are missing a form of energy in your calculations , this leads to 3: Your information is incomplete so you get a incomplete result.
I'll hazard a guess that the coming JWST data will make the crisis worse, again.
Something popped into my head a few month ago: Why must the universe when it was first formed not have "irregularities" ("bad spots" for the perfectionists) that randomly formed here and there. Such places would have different values for all sorts of things just in those areas and cause all sorts of unexpected things to occur. There is no reason to suppose that this can't happen, since what is there to stop it, anyway? This is possibly going to cause all sorts of odd-ball things...
This is the exact problem raised by the Big Bang theory that inflationary theory seeks to address
Astronomers have the opposite problem, explaining how observations seem to be similar in every direction.
Well if you believe in the big bang as a singularity then there would be no room for "irregularities" or anything non-homogeneous at all. Fast forward a few microseconds and there are theories that quantum irregularities triggered gravity gradients to make the universe clumpy, which jumpstarted galaxy formation. That's one explanation for the non-uniform background radiation maps we see. More to your point, all of modern astrophysics assumes that the laws of the universe are constant everywhere, and that can lead to some serious confirmation bias. I think it could certainly be possible for the laws of nature to vary over space and time in unexpected ways, even if they appear constant within out limited framework.
Well as of now the status quo is certainly trying to prove it's similar in all directions. It's almost become dogma at this point.@@tonywells6990
In cosmology (and indeed in most of science) you start with the simplest solution and then go from there. The simplest solution of Einstein's equations was for a homogeneous universe. At least until recently there was no grrat need to challenge that assumption, but that may have to be looked at again.
Galaxies probably just move around, idk why that is even being used as a measure of the universe's expansion. I would expect the CMB to be the best and most accurate option
The Hubble tension, which refers to the disagreement between two main ways of measuring the universe's expansion rate and age, is the biggest problem in astrophysics currently. A new research paper by Giani and collaborators was published this month, investigating the possibility that there may be something wrong with observational bias or the way data is being collected in the local universe. The study focused on the Lan AA super cluster of over 100,000 galaxies, which was discovered in 2014 and is where the Milky Way is located. The researchers found that the peculiar motion of galaxies in the cluster, which refers to their random motion on top of the apparent motion of the cluster due to the expansion of space, affects the calculations of the expansion rate and makes the Hubble tension worse. This suggests that the underdense region theory, which posits that the Milky Way may be in an underdense region with fewer galaxies than normal, is unlikely to explain the Hubble tension. However, the study has some caveats, and further research is needed to confirm the findings. New data from the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope may help to solve the problem.
I get all the gist from your channel instead of reading the papers...
I wouldn't say it's something to be proud of...
Awesome video! Do you know if the fit for distance to speed correlation got better or worse with their corrections? If it stayed the same or got worse, then it might mean the correction is just adding random noise to the model I would think.
wow nice lighting, great topic, stellar as always, keep up the good work.
So interesting. I've always had a silent intuition that our measurements of the universe must be missing something, considering there's no real way to "zero out" the measuring systems. But I never understood or could possibly explain why that feels correct, beyond "well, we're in some inertial reference frame that is being impacted in ways we probably cannot remove".
What about option three? This option would involve your measurements being 100% correct just that some parts of the universe are expanding and other parts might not be, maybe it’s just a blob.
Option three is both option one and option two being wrong.
The mainstream hypothesis of the universe being fundamentally flawed and the way they measure things being a complete ass-pull.
I always thought we had a long time to put this universe into an understanding. I just wish I could live long enough to see it happen.
The open the curtains at this time of the day, make the light seem nice and golden. I think it looks good. You’re almost glowing.
The biggest thing that scares me both in astrophysics and in cosmology in general is that of the 'Big Crunch'.
for me its the inverse, heat death always scares me.
The big crunch is pretty dang cool, basically the universe resets over and over again, letting and infinite number of alternate histories unfold, basically an resetting canvas for endless stories to be told
Do not sweat the big stuff, our tiny monkey minds can't compute Deep Time. I'm still hope-full for the big crunch as we get to be in an episode of Red Dwarf! Do as the snamor do.
I wonder if the presence of a large number of galaxies creates a kind of localized drag in the expansion rate of the universe.
We are trying to understand the universe by basically standing still in one single point looking at things millions of lightyears away. There are many things we don't know or can't test because we can't move around and get different perspectives. Even if the gravitational time dilation is a known factor it's also hard to factor in during the development of the universe.
Yes it does, but not enough to stop the Dark Energy's effect. In many billions of years someone living in the galaxy resulting from the merge of the Milky Way and Andromeda will not see other galaxies
@@francescogiardino4528 with a bit of luck they may have some dwarf galaxies mucking about in our outskirts to marvel at and ask themselves if maybe there had been other galaxies out there at some point.
if you truly understood that which you are; you would not have to look anywhere to understand the universe but inside.
I just wrote a comment questioning the same thing before reading this one. Is there a rule that makes the rate of expansion constant, in the entire universe?
As a statistician, the crisis seems pretty clearly to be one of confidence -- interval calculation from assumptions affecting error bar propagation. Mr. Gorbachev, widen up the bar!
But the issue that the confidence has gotten better with new observations over the last few years leading to different results from the two methods.
@@qazsedcft2162 I'm not complaining about the observations, but the assumptions inherent in their interpretation.
Love the video, very interesting. Dr B. I'm not a Cosmologist ... i have been an actor and and a builder too (amoung other things) i saw this video and thought..... Well the only way in construction that two people measuring from the same point end up degrees apart is by using 'non' callibrated equipement to measure work. Results are often worse when those doing the measurement start from different corners of the room. And finally there are always multiple points of reference and only shoddy builders fail to measure corner to diagonal corner as well as angle. Of course buildings Measured perfectly do still "move" too with even slight Moisture & Temperature changes. I wonder if the hot and cold areas of space affect the results of not only distance but time aswell? Curtains open was fine but harder to control outside light fluctuations.
Dr. Becky Thank you for sharing your expertise with passion and sharing it with us
Always good to get more data and methods to calculate H_0, but I fear that the underlying assumptions behind all methods are likely too oversimplified, so this tension won't be resolved with more data. The opposite appears to be true, maybe it's time to revisit the assumptions and deal with a more complex, but hopefully more consistent model.
That has been attempted. The problem is, any alternative model has to explain all (or nearly all) of the observations at least as well as standard cosmology, and that's a huge ask. None of the alternatives (such as MOND) have been able to do so.
All you have to do is sit back and ponder just how silly the inflation model sounds to know that there's a lot going on in the universe that we haven't the slightest clue about...
@@DonDueed I'm not talking about MOND, I'm talking about assumptions like isometry and homogeneity used to simplify the maths which are not supported by observations. Physicists should not stick to toy models because it's easier, and try to model the actual universe.
@@davidholland4713 The model isn't that bad. It might be missing something but it's less than 10% off from observations.
I don’t want to be that guy but this video demonstrates perfectly why the “theism vs atheism” debates are so frustrating. Religion can’t accept even the idea of being wrong. When a scientist, who looks at empirical evidence and observable facts, thinks that they might be wrong they’re excited for what that might mean.
What does the Bible say about cosmology?
@@THESMARTERMAN555 Well it said that plants existed before the sun, that's a start
@@thecarrotsarecoming4711
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.
You sure about that buddy?
@@thecarrotsarecoming4711
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.
You sure buddy? Go look up how bright the early universe was.
@@thecarrotsarecoming4711except when you study further the scripture you are referring too is about the sunlight diffusing through the early atmosphere, and not it being created, but becoming useful for its intended purpose. This allowing plants to receive the energy they need. As is stated in the beginning God made the heavens and the earth. So the sun was already in existence when this later scripture was mentioned.
"WHERE DOES TIME GO?" needs to be a meme... hit me in the feels.
There have been so very many white papers proving that light has matter in it. An electron connected by a dipole to an Anti-electron, which is a Positron with the rough equivalent charge of two protons. It's almost as if the protons are in there, but like the electron, they are smeared out over a given area so that when the photon hits a sensor, it doesn't register much mass. The definition of Atomic Mass is just this: the number of atomic particles in a system. That's it! Massive is just a poetic idiom and means nothing in physics, where a moon-sized comet can really just be fluffy snow and dust with little mass, whereas a tablespoon of a Neutron Star has a mass the size of a big chunk of real estate, like most of New York city.
Allow me to describe what this means by explaining what really happens with Pair Production. The electron was already there and is just exchanged via Electron Transfer, with the target absorbing the photonic electron and spitting out one of its own. The proton that is emitted, where did that come from? Pair Production cannot happen without a sufficiently powerful laser (often a Triton), and you also need a proton-rich metal like lead, uranium, gold etc. This makes the protons a bit unstable in the metal, and the positron is absorbed, with the metal converting it to one proton while emitting another from its loose matrices. You never "created" matter from energy because the two are the same thing. Energy is just very active matter, lol!
Why do I type all of this? Well, the Voyager probe is slowing down. Inexplicably! The suggestion is that it is an antennae that emits heat in one direction apparently, acting as a kind of DeFacto rocket engine pointing away from the probe. Except this antennae is usually pointing to Earth, so in fact Voyager should be speeding up, yes??? Instead, it's inexplicably slowing down, and here is the cool thing - it is slowing down at almost the same rate as the Doppler Red Shift of photons from distant galaxies. Almost exactly the same rate! That is no coincidence. Because the photons from distant galaxies have matter in them, they are tugged on by the Higgs Field that exists like a Matrix all through space, just as the Higgs Field tugs on Voyager. Because Voyager has a heavier mass, it is slowing down just a bit quicker than extra-galactic light.
What this means is that galaxies are NOT moving ever-quicker away from us. Some are, some are moving towards us, some are moving tangentially to us, etc. etc. It's complicated, but the good news is that the Universe is not dying. Each photon will live for about 1 quintillion years, with various estimates for Cyclical Universe expanding at 100 quintillion years, followed by a rebound (ummmm, everything is in a ballistic orbit around some semblance of the source of the Big Bang yo), which will increase in speed over time until we have the Big Crunch 100 quintillion years later.
At 14.5 billion years old, or whatever it is this week lol, our Universe is so young it hasn't finished being born yet. Yes, there are relics of the previous version of the Universe. Galaxies, starts, nebulas and stuff. So we know it's cyclical! All indications are that we live just under the surface of a massive Black Hole that has become a Cyclical White Hole, for lack of a better description. Your Standard Model is WRONG, but isn't that good news???? You are safe. Sol exists now in a kind of relatively empty bubble in the Milky Way, whereas the rest of it is largely a hell zone with colliding stars and planets. You are safe. Except from nukes, which despite claims to the contrary, if deployed in the right way definitely have enough fissionable material to cause the kicked up debris in the sky to catch the sky on fire, then the oceans, and turn our planet into a sheet of glass. The only real threat right now is each other.
Assuming the Big Crunch theory is true.
@@RuffianTux We have so much evidence of relics from the previous Universe. Galaxies, stars, planets and other artifacts which are older than our known Universe. At this point, we don't have to assume ... we KNOW.
The deepest problem is OF COURSE that we simply doesn't know the _exact_ nature of the universe. When we finally have a ToE, mergeing general relativity with quantum physics, we will certainly also get the explanations for many of these cosmological enigmas. Exactly how general relativity solves many enigmas in cosmology (and other physics) 100 years ago.
An issue I've heard is that QP is too complex to calculate in full scale rn, so we're simplifying the calculations a lot
Hello first general relativity is a sham. These theories have kept us from understanding the true nature of the universe we live in for over 100 yrs. Stop beating a dead horse already, it's never gonna work out. I think you all believe einstein created the universe so it must work according to his theories, right? Let's go back to basics. If you're into this stuff the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy are real too. Let's do real physics based on the laws of thermodynamics please.
The cluster looks like an angel, or like some of the microorganisms that exist in our world, especially water-bound creatures. Just very fascinating.
I wonder how the growth of neural tissue would appear from the perspective of a tiny cell near the ceneter. Would probably seem like everything is expanding and moving, just on a scale too large to fully grasp as a small cellular organism.
keep smoking
@@michaelandrews4783nothing wrong with an analogy. It’s not particularly accurate when you get super deep into it, but the surface level explanation is a good depiction of the idea for ease of reference.
How tf does it look like an angel, and not a fairy or anything that's not religious? Like if we where to be honest with ourselves it looks more like the glaucus atlanticus (the sea dragon slug) or Rapunzel's hair. But not an angel of any depiction tf.
Maybe we're a single alvioli in a single bronchiole inside the lung of a God who just so happens to be exhaling.
@@alexandramilos392 chill bro lmfao
I've got it! The local universe is more central and expands slightly slower than those galaxies much further away. What's needed are measurements at medium distances.
I keep thinking of Jen in IT Crowd.
It's not going on!
Yeah, I think it is so.
Just down angle it a bit more.
Are you sure you're a 5?
- I'm not a liar.
- Yeah, but I mean I can't...
Just... just...
I can feel the heel going into the shoe.
Just down angle a bit more...
There is no angle, but I could...
Don't let me push you away!
Just lean in with the shoe. Lean in...
with the shoe!
Lean in!
We've been here... for half an hour.
The shoes aren't going on!
They're two sizes too small.
And even if they did go on,
they would cripple you.
You don't want that, do you?
here's a fun little concept for consideration: there were conglomerations of primordial matter in clusters that somewhat accelerated expansion and resembled stars. they all died. the next generation of stars were likely the ones that generated the galaxy groups, then the galaxy sized stars in the third sequence, and our little sun is a fourth sequence type
Elden beast
Thanks! I was looking for someone to say this
I have gone to public school. But it is still fun trying to watch a roller coaster from underneath.
Isn't this like trying to measure browning motion when you don't even understand the fluid the particles are in, like an ocean with currents and densities they may fluctuate?
I still think that maybe once a black hole core reaches a certain density it does something we don't know about yet . It's gravity allows it to exist in a different spectrum of space time . Like an adjacent area of our physical dimension but one that can't be seen , like UV can't be seen . It becomes invisible inside it's field .
option 3) locally we are accelerating toward something. Those closer to that object are accelerating faster than us and those further away are falling further behind.
This solves the Fermi paradox. Everyone smarter than us left long ago
Stretching along the long axis and shrinking along the short axis? Sounds a lot like a funnel. Like... a lot a lot.
Perhaps dark energy isn't real. We are simply stuck making observations from the perspective of spiraling down the drain.
We aren't even sure what mechanism keeps galaxies together, perhaps the same effect is pulling the supercluster together and slowing down the apparent expansion.
I have been really worried about this for years!
Even those 1a supernovae are not a perfect standard candle because of varying metallicities of the white dwarfs.
Scientifically which is more of a crisis: you have so little data that your model or even multiple models fit and lead you to feel comfortably certain, or there is so much good data that we are having a hard time piecing it all together and it shows our current models aren't quite right.
Whenever someone asks "Where has the time gone," I like to reply "Forward, it only goes forward, arrow of time my lad/lass."
THANK YOU!!!!! I've been saying this for years. We're wrong about judging galaxies by the "known" brightness. I've been saying we're wrong about knowing this but since I suck at math, I have no proof. I was trying to point this out in another video about the age of the universe.