Big Bang Just DISPROVEN?! Joe Rogan & Stephen C. Meyer
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 12. 2023
- Please join my mailing list here 👉 briankeating.com/list to win a meteorite 💥
Have the recent findings of the James Webb Space Telescope disproved the Big Bang, as Eric Lerner claims in his book, the Big Bang Never Happened? Stephen C. Meyer discussed this on The Joe Rogan Experience. They give a shout out to me and my episode which appeared a few weeks later: • Cosmologist Brian Keat... and on Spotify sptfy.com/OL2e
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @drbriankeating
📺 Watch my most popular videos:
Neil Turok • Why Neil Turok Believe...
Frank Wilczek • Nobel Prizewinner Fran...
➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms:
✖️ Twitter: / drbriankeating
🔔 CZcams: czcams.com/users/DrBrianKeatin...
📝 Join my mailing list: briankeating.com/mailing_list
✍️ Check out my blog: briankeating.com/blog.php
🎙️ Follow my podcast: briankeating.com/podcast
Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known.
Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode!
#intotheimpossible #briankeating #joerogan
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Plays the Race Card!"
• Neil DeGrasse Tyson Hi...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~ - Věda a technologie
Did the Big Bang happen? 💥
Let's see, you've got a theory where you've got redshift that can be caused velocity. But it can also be caused by gravitational redshift, and it's looking more and more like it can be caused by plasma redshift too. Hubble's law is probably correct, and i believe if is, but the attribution of Hubble's Law to universal expansion i think is actually a bit presumptuous. We have a poor understanding of the way light behaves, especially over a huge distances, and we have a poor understanding of what's in the universe between stars.
For instance, if Big Bang Proponents are to be believed then the universe is full of dark matter that we can't see and can't detect.
We have the crisis in cosmology. Variable stars aren't matching CMB. That means either variable star data we don't understanding or CMB we don't understand. But the elephant in the room is *they could both be wrong.*
We have stars nearly as old as the universe. We have black holes that developed in the universe far earlier than we expected. We have people claiming the universe is twice as old as accepted. We have inconsistencies in the distribution of elements in the periodic table. We have galaxies rotating at the wrong speeds.
We are neither able to say where the big bang occurred, nor where the boundary of the expanding universe is, nor where we are in relation to that boundary. We have radiation from CMB that should be going away from us, coming back to us somehow. Why? Is it reflected off something travelling even faster than the speed of light? We justify some of these things by arguing that space itself is expanding. But what would that mean geometrically? What sense does it make to say a vacuum is expanding?
Some people argue for the tired light hypothesis. But ether was disproved, yet we know that the universe is full of tiny particles that spontaneously appear and annihilate. Some people argue that tired light is explained by gravitational redshift and that the expansion illusion is really what stock traders would describe as "beta loss", the sequential adding and removal of a fixed % or ratio of energy to a photon until gradually over time the energy drops causing a wavelength shift.
Personally, I suspect that there's a plasma redshift going on, and we have limited evidence for this happening. When the pioneer 6 spacecraft went behind the sun, as went into teh sun's occult, and the pioneer 6 spacecraft was transmitting through the sun's plasma, we saw a significant and measurable frequency shift of the transmission. This shift was not accounted for by doppler shift, and i've not seen anything to suggest that this was gravitational redshift either. There are essays being ignored from people like Dean L Mamas, and many others that at a certain average density of electrons in deep space (i think it was 32 per cubic meter - but i've not seen the paper for a while, so don't quote me on that) that you get the full spectrum shift of the entire electromagnetic wavelength that accounts for Hubble's Law without the conclusion that the universe is expanding at all.
If plasma redshift is a factor in any way, shape or form then it could change the age of the universe by billions of years.
Personally, what i would do, is i'd set up an experiment to determine how much of redshift is caused by speed and how much is caused by other factors. The way i'd do this is i'd use high speed sensors like we use today in lidar equipment, and i'd point it at a pulsar star, and i'd measure the time delta between the high frequencies of light and the low frequencies of light. And the nano second time delta between the upper and lower frequencies of light hitting the sensor would tell us quite a bit. It would tell us about the medium in between us and the pulsar, and if this time delta was increasing we'd know that the pulsar was receding. If it was decreasing, we'd know that it was approaching. We could compare this against the redshift of the pulsar, and apply it to surrounding stars to build up a more accurate depiction of whether the universe was expanding or not, if so at what rate, and how much of the redshift wasn't doppler shift, and we could solve the age old problem of whether tired light was actually thing.
20-30 years ago, this experiment wouldn't have been possible. But these days we lidars, and optical quantum key cryptography, and advanced gas sensing / spectroscopy hardware, we do things like this on a daily basis all day, every day.
We don't need to spend trillions on particle accelerators, or looking for dark matter, we just need a simple £30,000 validation test on redshift.
I'm not saying that big bang is wrong (although i think it is), what i'm saying is that if we follow Ockham's Razor, that all things being considered the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one, i'd argue that any quantum physicist will tell you "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't", and that it's far more rational to question our understanding of light over long distances than to spend billions on a wild goose chase looking for 70% of the universe being dark matter which we have absolutely no evidence for to make this theory work.
Apologies i went on a bit of rant there. But you see where i'm coming from can't you.
'a' (SPIRAL) not 'The' (SCM-LCDM) Big Bang did occur.
A hyper-dense start followed by a hyper cosmic expansion 'inflation' epoch.
see SPIRAL on the Keating 10 point Big Bang cosmology checklist.
One key is 'Pearlman vs Hubble' there is no ongoing cosmic expansion.
follow, test, disseminate Pearlman YeC SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model at ResearchGate, to advance the science.
Yeah but I don’t say that shit cuz I think “The emergence” sounds cooler
You can't disprove something that was never proven to begin with.
True, you can only DEBUNK 😉
Great point
Yes you can, it’s called disproving a theory dingus. If you go to court for a charge you never committed by your logic there is no way possible to prove you didn’t commit what your charged with, smh.
@@Food4Thought4Love You have no idea what theory means in science now do you? You don't tend to disprove a theory in science, since that by itself is an entire field of study.
Hypothesis can be disproven.
@@Nerdiness1985 a theory is a hypothesis that can’t be proven or disproven, if you disprove the hypothesis it is no longer a theory and is false, if you prove a hypothesis then it is fact. your fried you clearly don’t know what a theory is, you learn this in like 3rd grade
Oh boy.... just wait until Neil DeGrasse Tyson gets ahold of this information. He will have a major meltdown of epic proportions....
You mean the one and almighty, Mr. DeGreasy Tyson?
The Big Bang theory never made sense, and it does not hold up to scrutiny.
Where did the atoms come from that created the Big Bang? I thought mass cannot be created or destroyed but it can be rearranged.
Maybe what scientists claim is everything, is in fact, a tiny fraction of everything and the atoms and particles that created our universe came from something else that we don't understand.
Maybe we don't have a clue. Maybe we should be honest about the limits of our understanding of reality.
Neil is probably practicing his trumpet right now.
That’s because NDT has built his career on indoctrinating people into “believing” the Big Bang.
Neil is a 🦜
NDT will blame racism & white supremacy as he's taken to doing lately
One thing I hate about the "establishment" in any field is their outright refusal to accept their theories may be wrong. Science can't proceed and evolve if we desperately cling to our theories esp when evidence comes out that their not correct.
So very true, and we are also seeing it now in terms of aspects relating to Darwin’s theories but the scientific community (mostly in Western society)have built him into God like status that cannot be challenged.
Money is at stake, of course there will be
And from what I can remember, this been the case ever since I've been alive, and, I'm certain even long before.
I think some of the sciences are less political than others. Anything to do with social or political science, and most of anthropology is 99% political. The softer the evidence, the more vehemently they insist on a particular theory, and the more intense the political fights between competing theories. Promotions and grants hang in the balance.
@@BoJangles-mw8od yup, always changing their supposed findings. Yet people still hold on to the science community as the voice of authority. As I recall the history of this world in that annels of the pages of history, and, the ongoing processes they continue to hold to, I'm utterly amazed that people can and will, rise up through the ranks, and perpetual the ongoing errors of this Institutions of Science; and of Higher learning. I choose the simple written word of the Lord. And I could with this source alone, topple and destroy anything that opposes it.
“Science is provisional” the most honest thing I’ve ever heard from a fellow scientist.
He's not a scientist.
Really? Go read a book please
Oh, ae you a "fellow scientist"? lol.
Hello! What does the quote science is provisional mean to you?
You're not a scientist
He seems to literally say that this discovery does not mean there was no big bang, just that we are seeing galaxies that are older than we would have expected
It had a BEGINNING
@@SawyerOh And the big bang also states it had a beginning...? "In particular, the big bang model of the universe begins with a singularity-a point that appeared out of nothing and contained the precursors of everything in the universe in a region so small that it had essentially no size at all."
@@SmiteMeAlmightySmiter somthing can’t come from Nothing
@@SmiteMeAlmightySmiterThis is so funny because I know your dumbass went to google and copied that 😂😂
@@SawyerOh Says who?
Interesting point: In one of my older Astronomy magazines they wrote about observing galaxies that were traveling in adjacent angles to each other. To paraphrase the astronomer: "...if this is true, we know nothing. We know less than nothing."
Yes, that would certainly seem to be true. Very interesting.
We take to many theories as gospel when really not got a clue
Yes so much good info in those older mags.. the ones that came out back toward the 90s! Remember the planet that was detected in our solar system? That came out in 80/90s. IDK if that’s Planet X which is coming out more yet it’s still in theory state! SMH,
thats angular momentum and it would be impossible with a big bang as theorized!!!
It would be better if not knowing if it’s wrong. We are in awe of these scientists because they know big words. That’s all plus they all get a good living promoting lies. It’s all BOLLOX. The universe is many many times older then we think. The good thing about science is when your wrong you just move the goalposts and keep raking your wages in. Then come up with more BOLLOX to confuse people all over again
Everyone is so smart yet we live like animals under control. The whole world is delusional
At this point in our existence, who honestly cares if the Big Bang did or did not happen? We can't even afford homes or food while government officials and corporations tighten the noose. Our species is doomed.
what does this even mean
@@boooooof731 what does your delusion mean? Are you stupid , open your eyes and you'll see a man who thinks he's a girl
@@boooooof731 it means you are a stupid slave, think for yourself victim
@@boooooof731 they "think" the older than they "thought"👍.... And the evidence continues to support the theory that the Universe had a beginning... But they still have no evidence to support any theory of how it came into existence in order to expand.... In hillbilly terms.... It's fun to play with expensive toys, but they still don't "know" anything for sure.
The Bible says "God stretched out the heavens"... But nothing on "continuing to stretch"😎
ALL of my problems and the daily problems that everyone in the world faces will be completely resolved once this mystery is solved!
Hahahahaha
😂😂😂
If they hadn't wasted billions pretending they know stuff ,blowing stuff up ,ruining the environment here doing it, maybe the world could be a nice place .
Boys and their nazi rockets 😀
"Space may be the final frontier but it´s made in a Hollywood basement." RedHotChilliPeppers
Another cheap and generic lyrics about taking drugs, pretending to be deep. The only depth that band has is the bass and guitar.
@@lukaspersson447 or he could be talking about the fake moon landing that was obviously not real
Never really liked Red Hot Chili Peppers and I’m from LA lol
love the hissy fit the comments for this (brilliant) quote brought here... lol
@@boazzippor1972always hatin'
We have been completly wrong throughout our history, it is very likely that this is still the case.
agree 100%
and it looks like old civilizations had more knowledge of our past
@@user-eo1zf8lp1h how?
Yes we are always wrong. We are probably wrong about everything. Electricity, classical mechanics, relativity, quantum mechanics. This pc im writing on doesnt even work, these fkn scientists am i right? Im supposed to believe that my comment that im writing right now just reaches you from across the planet? Hell no, theres no way, they are always wrong.
@@user-eo1zf8lp1hOf course they did. They were closer to our past than we are lol.
@eb-ol4po are you bots? You seem to possess the intelligence of bots. Old civilizations thought Earth was center of the entire universe and that rubbing mud in an open wound was a good way to slow the bleeding. Old civilizations didn’t even know how to make door hinges but you morons think they knew more about astronomy than scientists today? 🤣🤦♂️
Every 100 years or so most of our concepts change, the more we think we know the more we know we dont know, real reality is beyond human comprehension, as was designed.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
- Max Planck (Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918)
@@malachi- tell that to quantum theory
@@Pow_FIsh
Max Planck was one of the founders of Quantum Theory. He also said, contrary to traditional materialist physicist belief, that Consciousness creates matter not the other way around.
😂 😂 “as was designed” 😂😂
If Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, wouldn’t that have meant they knew everything about reality? If they lived for over 900 years having children that would populate earth, surely they would have written things down about gravity, germ theory, the speed of light, our solar system, relativity, etc. Why did it take thousands of years for humans to discover these things if Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, giving them the knowledge about everything in the universe? If you make the claim, that the forbidden fruit only provided the “opportunity” to know things, that would mean when god made Adam and Eve, he didn’t make us intelligent.
How about instead, knowledge grows / evolves the more we ask questions like science does.
When will you theists wake up?
Stephen Meyer was on the Joe Rogan show?! Whaaaat?!!😮
How did I miss this development? I need to see the full episode!
The elephant in the room, that one huge question which is never brought up: What existed BEFORE the big bang? What, exactly "banged"? Are we to simply assume that matter didn't not exist, then it suddenly sprang forth from nothing? It is always presented as if suddenly, everything came from nothing.
Has there been only one bang? Perhaps there were other bangs early, and they have expanded beyond our ability to recognize their existence?
The Big Bang theory is that all matter previously existed prior to the Big Bang, but this bang set it all in motion. Science has never said that matter came from nothing. Also we have evidence of the fallout or afterglow of the Big Bang. Fascinating stuff.
Something had to create the bang, the beginning, the universe. Nothing cannot create nothing. It had to be something. In my opinion I think it's amazing that how much more we discover the science behind things, the more we realize that there was "something" that started it or created it's law, or it's "purpose". Sounds familiar right? lol. It is said that no matter how much we keep going as humans, we will only ever discover a grain of sand to what's really happening and what's going on. That's even more amazing to think lol. For example, a living raw cell. No matter what we ever do, we can never create a raw cell from nothing, like they are here naturally. The cell itself has a purpose so therefore it has a creator.
@@loopaking the universe is nothing but pure chaos, black holes, planets colliding with asteroids, gravity ripping through space and time. Galaxies are born and die , with no rhyme or reason. Why is our galaxy any different? If you look at what goes on in the universe there’s no plan it’s just cosmic level destruction. Why are humans so egocentric that they think this universe needs some glorious purpose, when all this universe has shown us is that there is absolutely no plan, no reason just randomness.
space and time both were created in the big bang. there is no "before" the same way there was no "stuff"
The answer is "we do not know".
I read a few months ago that they now think the universe is 26 billion yrs old, not 13.5, 138, etc. since it keeps changing, maybe we just don't know.
You should be careful when one person makes a claim even if they are a scientist. The scientific consensus is still 13 something billion years old.
Science changes almost daily and cannot always be trusted.
Too many scientists are caught up in arrogance, when a lot of them are just flat out wrong.
@@2norberto consensus means nothing when there is contrary evidence.
@josephakot4821 Yes, it does. Scientific consensus means mean when the majority of the evidence and studies point to one direction. You dont go with what one person says until it's Scrutinized by many different sources.
Agreed, unmerited confidence coming from all directions
What gets me every time is hearing that every thing came from nothing
“Forever” is hard for the overwhelming majority to grasp.
You included 🙀
No matter what new record distances are discovered about dimensions of the universe the whole thing still fits inside something even larger.
Yes. Consciousness.
We will never truly know anything
@@johntitorii6676 And yet we know something! We know that we dont truly know anything! LOl
@@johntitorii6676 I know Coke is better than Pepsi.
I don't think Space expands into anything.. what exactly does it fit inside?
This is the equivalent of Gobekli Tepe setting the date back for the emergence of settlements and the fussy academics still can’t accept the new paradigm.
And they’ll fight the new info tooth & nail just like they have with Gobekli Tepe too.
Seeing such closed-mindedness in “academics” is so disappointing.
@@mozes42it is sad isn’t it? Most people don’t change their minds they just die. Add a power structure to that and you get the current state of academia.
Lots of "gatekeeping" goes on within institutions. So much is invested in the world as it's been presented since the 'enlightenment'.
One topic that interests me is why various influential people, many being politicians have visited Antarctica and why any research or exploration of the place seems heavily discouraged or shrouded.
You should read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. This is actually how science tends to work. New information only is accepted when the old guard dies. The scientific establishment doesn’t actually operate according to what people call the scientific method.
You may be confusing one of the strengths of the scientific method with stubbornness in some cases. When a new idea emerges that goes against the current status quo, it's expected that other scientists will do their best to tear the idea apart and attack any angle they can. It is only by surviving this gauntlet of challenges that a fringe idea can one day become mainstream. If the evidence is conclusive, ideas gain traction fairly quickly. When other explanations also can fit the data, or results vary there will be much more pushback. Some men built their legacy around theories that may be disproven later, surely they'll defend them. But other men build their legacy disproving older theories and changing the paradigm.
The fact Joe hangs in there with conversations blows my mind. You tha man joe
Yeah it's really hard to just listen
Joe been doing this for a while. Go back an watch some of his old clips from 4 and 5 years ago of him interviewing different scientists and doctors. Joe kinda smart😅
Joe was tricked almost immediately. He accepted the 'misquote' cope, it doesn't matter if she loses sleep over 'the big bang' or 'galaxy formation' those are the same things represented slightly differently. There's no world where JUST galaxy formation is wrong, galaxy formation is wrong because GRAVITY is wrong. That's what keeps her up. And the scumbags that run this channel know and are paid to lie to us.
NASA ‘Not A Space Agency’. Lmao.
Never A Straight Answer
NASA is not a civilian space agency but a military one, as everything they do is subject to military classification.
Because NASA didnt care about its astronauts back in the day, we called them, Need another seven astronauts.
NASA is a military agency not a space agency
@@jaimefish173 Challenger no one died they are alive several now claiming to be twin brothers who did not attend funeral services and no record of birth for twins. One so called twin carries on the Legacy remembering his whatever. do your own research it is easily available
We can't even accurately date the monuments of ancient egypt. I think its safe to say we know absolutely nothing about the universe
we know lots of things about the universe, dating things on earth is tricky as you need to deal with erosion over time and weather, which makes it hard to date due to many external factors affecting it, but light has a constant measure which means no matter what its speed is not changing with this we can accurately calculate distance/time. because of this we can calculate a point of origin, commonly referred to a bing bang. where everything was together superheated in a ball of plasma. but we can't "look" further back we can only state hypothesis from there. which means the universe could of existed before its plasma state for an infinite amount of time for all we know.
The universe is probably older than they thought and those galaxies just had more time to form than they thought
Your common sense is not welcome here. Only conspiracies.
Nope. Not according to evidence.
When I was a kid they told me it was 5 billion old. Trust me. It will keep changing. They act like they know. They don’t
@@christophercremo3020 _"They act like they know. They don’t"_
Yes they do. And it is based on evidence. Care to deal with it?
@@plasmaphysics1017 Humans are very limited, but very egotistical. Some think they know it all, but in reality they know next to nothing.
The video literally says big bang IS CONFIRMED. Title is click bait.
We will have to consult Dr. Fauci on this... I heard that he is, in fact, science itself.
Or Joe Rogan....he knows everything 🙄
Nah, cut out the middleman and just ask Bill Gates
@@mikegeee3319 Knowing more than you do doesn't mean knowing everything.
😭😭😭🤣🤣🤣💯
@@Turgz I'll trust a scientist w 40 years experience over Rogan lol
(To me, this sounds like the Universal Torus theory. Birth, life, death... rebirth, infinitely). I think the Roger Penrose theory, that the cosmic background radiation was already evenly dispersed at the moment of the Big Bang, is fascinating. That means the empty space the Universe propagated into was already there for an infinite amount of time. And that we are living in the opposite side of a black hole... the Big Bang was a white hole (explains a lot)... crazy.
CMBR: (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation): Consider the following: Per QED (Quantum Electro Dynamics, whereby 'em' interacts with the electrons in atoms and molecules) and QCD (Quantum Chromo Dynamics, whereby 'em' interacts with the nucleus of atoms), matter has to exist for 'em' to be given off by that matter. What matter exists in outer space for that microwave 'em' to be seen by us? And 'if' it were from when matter first came into existence during the fairy tale of the 'singular big bang', that 'em' should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us.
BB -> Matter and 'em' are created -> 'em' moves at the speed of light, matter moves more slowly -> (Billions of years go by) -> matter (and us) here ..........................................'em' long gone. (And there is no matter 'out here' yet for any 'em' to come back to us via QED or QCD).
IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING:
SOME THINGS MODERN SCIENCE DOES NOT APPARENTLY KNOW:
Consider the following:
a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics).
b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand.
c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary.
d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above.
e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality?
f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon?
And electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. Why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe?
Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above.
Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?).
g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent?
h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How?
@@charlesbrightman4237 Who the heck are you Charles? Well that just threw a spanner in the works. Brilliant!
@@johnwilliams3555 Thanks, consider my view concerning 'red shift' as well:
RED SHIFT: WARNING: (CONTAINS EXISTENTIAL MATTERS):
Red Shift: Consider the following:
a. Current narrative: Space itself is expanding. (Even though science does not fully know yet what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually expand).
b. But consider: The net effect of solar winds, particles and energy pushing outward from galaxies, (even modern science claims 'em' has momentum), continuously, over a prolonged period of time, with other galaxies doing the same, with nothing to stop them from doing so, would tend to push galaxies away from each other and even potentially allow the cosmic web to form between galaxies.
And then, when we here in our galaxy, look at far away galaxies, with other galaxies in between, the net effect of all those galactic interactions would have galaxies furthest from ours move away faster the further those galaxies were from us, including us perceiving a red shift of energy.
c. Now, utilizing the scientific principal of Occam's razor, which way is more probably correct? What the current narrative is ('a' above), or 'b' utilizing known physics?
* Added note: Plus, 'if' my analysis is correct that our spiral shaped galaxy is collapsing in upon itself, then consider also:
d. When we look at solar systems between ours and the center of the galaxy, those solar systems would be getting pulled faster towards the center than ours, hence also seeing a red shift of energy.
e. When we look at solar systems between ours and the outer edge of the galaxy, our solar system would be getting pulled faster towards the center then them, hence also seeing a red shift of energy.
f. Only if we looked at solar systems adjacent to ours should we see a blue shift of energy (as the solar systems became closer together as they moved towards the center of the galaxy). I also propose looking for blue shifts of energy between our solar system and adjacent solar systems to confirm or deny this current belief.
g. But if true, would also add to our observation of seeing a red shift of energy in this universe as our spiral shaped galaxy collapses in upon itself.
Of which, not only would species from this Earth have to get off of this Earth before the Sun becomes a red giant one day and wipes out all life on this Earth if not even the entire Earth itself, but species from this Earth would also have to successfully get out of this collapsing spiral shaped galaxy, otherwise, most probably death awaits us all and this Earth and all on it are all just a waste of space time in this universe. All life from this Earth would eventually die and go extinct. Currently, no exceptions.
h. QUESTION: Do basically all galaxies eventually collapse in upon themselves?
(Which would add to the perceived red shift between galaxies as they all basically shrink in size).
Modern science currently states that 'gravity' is matter bending the fabric of spacetime. There is a lot of matter in a galaxy and hence would make a huge dent in spacetime. How could galaxies not collapse in upon themselves if space and time were bent to make it so?
Of which also, the progression of galaxies?:
1. How exactly do galaxies form? (The current narrative is that matter, via gravity, attracts other matter. The electric universe model also includes universal plasma currents.)
2. How exactly do galaxies flatten out if gravity is acting on the whole galaxy? (Other forces must also be at work besides gravity for a galaxy to flatten out? Electrical and/or magnetic forces?)
3. How exactly do galaxies become spiral shaped? (At least one way would be orbital velocity of matter with at least gravity acting upon that matter, would cause a spiral shaped effect. The electric universe model also includes energy input into the galaxy, which spiral towards the galactic center, which then gets thrust out from the center, at about 90 degrees from the input. Additionally, with the conservation of energy, as energy moves into the vertical plane from the center of the horizontal plane, energy from the horisontal plane moves to the center of the horizontal plane to replace the energy that moved into the vertical plane. There is also the conservation of angular momentum. As more matter moves towards the center of the galaxy, that portion of the galaxy would speed up relative to the matter towards the outer portions of the galaxy.)
Additionally: GALAXY SPIN: (Inner and Outer areas spinning at the same speed):
The inner and outer areas of the galaxy are connected via gravitational, electrical, and magnetic energy fields. While moving at the same speed, the inner area has less space to travel whereas the outer area has more space to travel. Hence a spiral shape forms.
4. The natural progression of a galaxy would be to become smaller and smaller.
5. Of which, does all life throughout the entire universe (if other life even exists in the universe besides what is on this Earth, which is most probably true) eventually die and go extinct and the entire universe and all in it are ultimately meaningless in the grandest scheme of things and the entire universe and all in it are ultimately just a waste of spacetime in existence?
And even 'if' the current narrative of space itself is expanding, and the entire universe would eventually end in a 'big freeze', wouldn't the end of life itself in this entire universe still occur?
@@johnwilliams3555 I am 'me'.
I always assumed, "space" was something between the ears of politicians and news reporters ! Gee, guess I might be right ?
Well. If we’re being honest. We all have some space is that area. Some more than others 😂
We all started with a bang
When it comes to politicians and news reporters, your conflating space with void.
Yes, and space (which separates us) is also the opposite of Love (which brings us together).
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
What the Hel. The title says "Big Bang Just DISPROVEN" and this video tells just the opposite; that there is more evidence that the Big Band theory is likly true.
Punctuation is very important and you obviously missed the ❓
That was a misleading video title…
"Give us one free miracle, and we'll explain everything else."--Terence McKenna
More like miracles
McKenna was referring to the Big Bang.@@ramirocantu3869
The free miracle has already been given in Jesus's sacrifice on the cross.
@@pentitent395 That's a fairytale not a miracle, there's an important distinction.
@@a-walpatches6460 The big bang is literally a creation myth, but go off.
This accomplished physicist said something that I do not think he meant. He said that the redshifts in faraway galaxies were predicted by the Big Bang theory, when in fact, redshift was known before the Big Bang was an accepted theory. If a galaxy is moving away from you, even if there were no universal expansion or Big Bang, there would still be a redshift of the light.
Imho correct.
Perhaps he meant the extent of the particular redshifts? I don't know, is spite of the fact I studied astrophysics at Uni. But it was 52 years ago... Everything that I knew is now probably complete bollocks. That's what happens with science.
It is arrogant and stupid to believe that we know anything about the universe when we barely understand the functions of our body.
Science is the pursuit of truth, not the determination of truth.
I think the biggest flaw with all these predictions is assuming that time itself has remained consistent throughout Expansion. If the universe is expanding, it's reasonable to suggest that time is also expanding. In other words, the length of a second as we measure it now is longer (more "stretched out") than a second was billions of years ago. Those distant galaxies didn't form ultra-fast, they formed at a standard rate. It's just that by our current measurement of time it only seems too fast.
I'm inclined to agree. The period of a second is relative to our current experience of space-time, which they admit evolved significantly since the BB.
There is no reason to think, or evidence, for time running at a different rate in the early universe. In the first 20 minutes the universe seemed to run exactly as it does today, which is why the predictions of nucleosynthesis (the creation of hydrogen, helium and other light elements) match observations. Time would be dilated if gravitational curvature in the early universe was high (like it is around a black hole), but it wasn't. Spacetime is almost 'flat', which means its curvature (and any time dilation) was nearly zero.
@@tonywells6990 Well said. However, I fear you are wasting pixels on the amateur physicists posting on here :)
Just because something is 'reasonable', does not make it more than an extension of the imagination. Time is solely a human function within our physical reality; a measurement of existence necessary to organize our physical reality.
Although Einstein alluded in his theory of special relativity that as we approach the speed of light time dilates, however, within that moment of existence, for the observer - and the traveler - a second is still just a second. The measurement of time, i.e., a second, a minute, etc, within itself does not change, but the dilation effect is merely the comparison experience of the observer's clock to the traveler's clock. It is the speed that causes the effect, not the life of either the observer or the traveler... or the galaxy.
To the observer a second is still a second, while on the traveler's warp-enveloped ship, a second is also just a second. An earth-measured year is still an earth-measured year, regardless of location or speed. In other words, the traveler doesn't get 'longer' seconds, days, months or years on his ship at warp speed, while the observer on Earth does not get 'shorter' seconds, days, months or years in his still position. The measurement does not change, only the comparative observational experience does.
@@h.glover9843 What I find frustrating is that there's no way to determine absolute time. It's all relative and based on motion. Our perception of time and the ways we measure it are all based on how fast things move. If everything started moving faster, as observed from outside our frame of reference, we wouldn't know, as you said. If time sped up to twice as fast (if that even makes sense) a clock would tick twice as fast, things would fall twice as fast, we would age twice as fast, but it would still happen at the same speed from our perspective because our own thoughts and senses are also working twice as fast.
I love Stephen Meyer! Here, as in his books, he is clear, understandable, as he gives usable information gleaned from complex data. He correctly refutes misinformation with relevant explanations. Thank you for this clip.
Interesting, I was just thinking the opposite about him with all of his bloviating, circular reasoning, double speak and basically being a woman with endless speech without really saying anything.
He didn't refute anything. The surprising part is there are galaxies that are older and more formed than the big bang theory predicts not that there is infrared light
Uh no he literally distributes misinformation. Cambrian "explosion."? He lied about when the Cabrian period actually began. Irreducable complexity? Debunked a gillion times in lab experiments, he keeps repeating it. No benefitial mutations? They only count those which have nothing to do with environment which is nonsense. DNA is like computer code? False. DNA is governed by physical laws by way of amino acid chains physically forming into geometric patterns. It's nothing like computer code or "information".The time problem? They only consider mutations happening in sequence, not parallel, and they totally ignore the roll gene expression plays in evolution.
Time and time again they either lie, straw man, or deliberately rig things in their favor to come to a predetermined OUTCOME. It's not science.
@@SickJames1 now they've found galaxies even further out and way to formed to fit in the old " age of the universe " theory, plus they may have found " dark stars" and they really throw a wrench into physics
@@LANCEtheBOIL what are you talking about? they've known about all that. none of this is "new". light can only travel so fast. the light due to the big bang hasn't gotten here yet this isn't hard to understand. these devices show us what's out there it's up to us to go through the data and see what it says. the time they say the big bang could have happened is just an educated guess this guy is throwing out a lot of word salad
I wonder why Stephen Meyer never talks about the Kitzmiller trial.....😂
So how was it disproven? If anything, what was discussed is in support.
I don't understand it either. I think that it's not about disproving it, but that we interpreted it wrong... Idk. That's why he is on Joe Rogan and not me i guess. He's smart
It wasn’t, he said it was confirmed that they saw the red shift they expected for a universe that originates from a single point. The newsie misquoted the scientist … what that scientist said is that galaxies formed a lot faster after the Big Bang than they thought possible.
There's a market these days in making huge claims that everything we know is wrong in favor of something 'exciting'. The exciting thing doesn't answer anything usually.
The title is click bait to get more views from people who don't think the big bang is actual science.
“To realize that all your life, all your love, all your hate, all your memories, all your pain, it was all the same thing. It was all the same dream, a dream that you had inside a locked room, a dream about being a person.” - Fred Rogers
Or Rustin Cohle.
@@fcztyuo876b6 *Rusty Hole.
Kanye said it too
Zhuangzi dreams of a butterfly
@@user-du7dt2ky8y I knew he was a plagiarist.
The "Nasa People" are the Engineers at Northrop Grumman that built the JWST on behalf of a NASA contract.
okay great thanks
So he is completely ignoring the contributions by ESA and CSA?
Let's stop with the conspiracy theories and listen to huge consensus from a wide range of scientists around the world. Nothing is ever proven in science (unlike maths) but for now there's a LOT of data indicating that the big bang + inflation model is the current one to beat.
My problem with all this is; Expense vs. Useful information we can use.
None of the "distant galaxies" matter.
It's unreachable & all the $$ is gone.
Gone gone. What we learn for the expense can't possibly be balanced with anything useful on our planet today. Spend billions on our world 1st. Make Earth a peaceful place 1st. Feed our starving children 1st. House our homeless 1st. EARTH 1ST!!
It is well known in science that when observations do not match your theory, your theory is wrong..
After reading many comments here, it seems that many are reading and reacting to the video title without really listening to/understanding what Stephen is actually saying.
No they are just too stupid to understand what he said. Unfortunately. Ya, that's what you get when you throw the family and nation out the window for identity politics and drugs.
We understand what he is saying we just don't agree with it.
The universe is infinite. What is infinite cannot expand - it’s already everywhere.
Ever heard of scale factor?
actually infinite means always expanding, not endless
@@JasonDoege-js8io you need to get yourself a dictionary.
@@phk2000 nothing could ever process something endless. so its impossible to know if it exists or not. its the old if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it does it make a sound thing. so if you want to believe in thats up to you, but you will, nor will even God ever be aware of it. so whats the point
When infinity is seen the immediate and positive change to your experience of life is incalculable. Dig deeper into this. You’ll be amazed!
Trying to prove with 100% accuracy how the universe was created is a bit of a paradox. How do beings that live in an existence, define it, if the did not exist before it was created. There are a bunch of theories I have heard that are as plausible as any other theory. They are fascinating explanations.
This is why we have placeholders such a 'infinite' and 'faith' because we do not know and will really never know.
Until we have independent verification that the red shift is caused by expanding space (ie recessional velocities) we ahould keep the BB theory as a potential model and consider other models.
We had observed before JWST that the farther the object the greater the red shift. That is not new. But what we do not know is if this red shift is really caused by recessional velocities.
One thing that JWST was not able to confirm was that the optical illusion that you should see in expanding space is not present. Which puts into question the expanding space model.
I would love to know if they have been able to determine the approximate center/starting point of the big bang and where we are in relation to that "center"
There is a "Great void" where there are very few galaxies and stars. I wonder if this could be the "center".
Lololoool. You guys actually believe this stuff? 😂
@@Gary_Winthorpe anyone with a brain and wasn't brainwashed for 20 years by their mommies and daddies knows science has better explanations of the start of the universe then the "sky daddies' theory"............ we know we know your imaginary friend in the sky had some random bums and drunks feel his love and write a bunch of chapters in a book and it said god is real.
I think according to the theory the center point is the entire universe so there is no starting point it just expands in every direction and does not expand away from a starting point.
@@Gary_Winthorpe care to share an alternative model?
It is exciting beyond description seeing how the JWST is proving its financial investment with incredible observations. If only we could simply allow the scientific method to run its course without hyperbolic arguments over observations that have not been vetted or refuted over normal due diligence. Thank you for the JWST !
…can still spot a bot a mile off,just saying ✌️
No ya can't, just saying@@scottanderson3751
The information gleaned from the telescope is moderately interesting but how will it benefit us otherwise?
I don’t think it’s worth more than 10 minutes of my slavery to the state.
The Big Bang theory is illogical and not thought through. It is ridiculous to think that nothing existed before the big bang. Plus why would the Big bang theory ever be advanced in the field of science when no one could ever postulate what could have "caused" it.
@@someonethatwatchesyoutube2953 It is worth it! Knowledge is power. And the new technology that sprung from it has numerous practical applications.
I think the reason the galaxies were forming faster is cause there was less dark matter in the early universe making general gravity more intense
God spoke this universe into being in less than a second. Lets pretend the 'exprts are right and man is 25 million yrs ol. If they started with 4 and 2 men 2 women. and they had just 4 kids and this repeated every 40 years. Do the exponential growth and decay thingy and tell me what our
pop would be. Hint, the world would be covered with people to a depth of over 30 feet. Man has been around for 6,000 years. they can laugh at me for saying that, but I can laugh too, and often do. cheers
Dark matter and dark energy are fudge factors to balance their equations. Anytime you have a fudge factor of +/- 10,000 times the sum there is a good chance either your original premise or your equations are wrong.
@elonever.2.071 Exactly. Having went down the dark matter/energy rabbit hole, it resembles religion. You can't prove it does exist or doesn't exist. You can only say it should exist because there is currently no other explanation.
NO! That does not disprove the big bang theory.
I still think there is something fundametal wrong with the whole theory regarding redshift.
They still need to measure redshift, redshifting. Meaning that the wavelenght of a very distant object is visible changing over time too.
Lets say that for example z=10 becomes z=10.000000001 over a span of the last 50 years or so. Something like that.
If it cannot be calculated and tested, redshift itself might be caused by something else.
_"redshift itself might be caused by something else."_
And what would that be? Trust me, various crackpots have been pushing tired light nonsense for decades. None of them have a viable mechanism.
Redshifting is a proven theory, you CAN messure it and calculate it
I strongly suggest looking up Halton Arp so you can find out exactly what is wrong with redshift. It's a lot. More than you can easily imagine. Happy hunting.
Oh its a proven theory is it? So I guess you never read the Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies by Halton Arp where he shows pictures of thousands of blue-shifted galaxies physically connected with a visible plasma bridge to highly redshifted ones? How's that possible if redshift is an indication of direction and speed? My best advice is to be very careful about what you accept as a proven theory. It might shock you to learn just how much of our theory of space is one broken theory piled on top of another broken theory. Whenever you have a conclusion and are looking for evidence to support it, things tend to go bad; and that is exactly what our theoretical space sciences have become. A bunch of biased people protecting their degrees and reputations by ignoring what we observe and patching their broken, non-predictive theories. In 200 years, the stuff we "know" today is going to be laughed at and people are going to wonder how anyone ever bought into this big-bang dark matter nonsense. @@iori1303
Hubble didn't think so. Can you imagine? Redshift of light on those distances cannot be proved
I've always been a bit sceptical of big bang theory, how did a lot of matter explode out of something pea sized without contradicting conservation of energy and the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics?
Because you don't understand said laws?
Net energy is likely zero. But we may not have access to the counterpart energy that would otherwise cancel the energy in observable universe.
Give scientists a trillion dollars and they would be happy to work on the "how".
Amen to that.
@@berylbazor3756 'Amen' is highly apt for the OP. His arguments from ignorance are the standard nonsense of creationists.
The big bang theory doesn't break down via observation, it breaks down mathematically. If you go back in time far enough, matter had to be moving faster, in relation to other matter, than the speed of light.
Why dont they say they dont know they cant ever know
And more so the question shouldn't have been asked as no answer exist
The universe is way older than what they have predicted based on how fast these distant old galaxys should be at
So the big bang theory is still valid but our timeline and the age of the universe seems incorrect? That would make sense.
Dude, stay in your lane.
Your cosmo expertise, when it comes to qualitative literacy, quantitative analysis and final computations, is not much superior than your pit bull’s.
I read something other day saying the galaxy’s formed much faster then thought possible because all the matter that made them was closer together. The age time was the same but the space around them wasn’t.
@@earlforrester4908 That sounds coherently probable and plausible. 👍🏽✊🏽💪🏽👏🏽
Instead of relying merely upon intuitive assumptions, and making half baked conclusions, stay cognitive and explorative.
And that will expand your intuition vastly.
Sounds like you have the right practices. ✌🏽
@@readynowforever3676 You don't know his Pit Bull's academic achievements, mate.
To me it is all about the data, the JWST data is telling us something is off, our perceived age of the universe might be incorrect.
Our understanding of galaxy formation theory is so incomplete we can't really confirm or deny these findings at the moment.
However, the JWST data is consistently pointing out that we do not have the full scope, and what we think is the age of the universe might be of by as much as 14 billion years.
*off
Time & Space are meaningless, i mean there are stars out there that could fit 400 quadrillion of our sun, inside... I can't even fathom 400 quadrillion, let alone 400 quadrillion suns, in just 1 star
Yet apparently, all this mass and universe, just one day, popped into existence from a point no bigger than a pin head 🤔
Let's explain it all with a zombie carpenter in middle east shitsville...
@@hdmccart6735 😂😂😂
@@jimreaper1337 no. The Big Bang theory is about the rapid expansion of the universe, and not about what caused the rapid expansion. The BBT works with assumption there was an infinitely dense singularity, not that anything just popped into existence.
The people who are claiming that everything came from nothing are believers/theists who believe in creatio ex nihilo.
I have always wondered, what if there have been multiple big bangs. That might explain some of the older Galaxies they didn't expect. So, rather then there being a beginning of time, it's just cycles of galaxies being started.
But it's just a thought.
The debate on big bang vs static universe needs to be reopened, there has been no real investigation since Bell Labs accidentally discovered the microwave background radiation, and it was decided that the Big bang theory had won, and anyone that questions this ends up without a career.
It suggests Galaxies formed in what would necessarily be the innermost, least energetic, and therefore least dense area surrounding the singularity, or where it once was.
And yet that area somehow must have cooled and coalesced within the first 200 million years.
Most of the energy had already been flung outward. However, perhaps its like the center of an explosion, the energy expands outward, but it leaves a puff of smoke hanging in the sky. Maybe it was a big pocket, bubble or puff of energy that cooled and coalesced into matter, then formed galaxies.
It would explain how those innermost galaxies developed first. There must have been residual energy lingering around the center of the Big Bang.
There's no "explosion". All parts of the universe would move away from each other at the same speed, so there wouldn't be a "bubble" or "puff of energy" in the center that cooled faster.
xD
If it does, then good. It means progress. It means discovery. And that is always healthy in science. In fact, theories get disproven all the time. Usually by their own authors. The day that theories stop getting proven or disproven would be a dark day for science.
The Copernican Principle has been disproved multiple times, but that doesn't stop scientists from engaging in mental gymnastics to keep their theories propped up. If they have to reinvent the laws of physics with special relativity, insert made up dark matter into their equations, invent an ever expanding Big Bang universe to explain away why everything is red shifted, they'll do it.
They'll do it rather than question their foundational beliefs regarding the earth. Anything to prop up the Copernican Principle. In fact, most of the new theories discovered over the past century have been used to prop up their foundational theory that the earth moves and has no favoured location.
yes, that's why science can not be trusted
That's already happened. Need to break it to you. Is the big bang theory? When was the last time somebody tried to disprove that??????????? Or approve for that matter....
@@danemaui8259 when was the last time ? :DLMAO not that long ago actually..
Good point. Scientists are human, and human frailties like *_Ego_* and *_Toxic Certainty_* only get in the way of science.
Scientific Method requires that we be unbiased.
Regrettably, scientists seem to have chosen a heavily biased paradigm -- doubt-ridden "skepticism."
Contrary to the popular myth, the better paradigm for discovery is restraint and humility. Restraint from jumping to the easiest conclusion, and humility to empirical evidence (humility to God, the source of that evidence).
But asking some scientists to be humble, is like asking a donkey to fly by shoving it off a cliff. The poor creature is not suddenly going to sprout wings.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Question, where along histories timeline did the definition of "the universe" change from one of all existence (which can have no beginning) to that of an event that occured (within existence) called the big bang?
History's timeline shifted in the 20th century at several points.
1924 - Edwin Hubble discovered that the spiral nebula which had been known for years were not within this galaxy, but were external galaxies. This was the first big step to appreciating the huge nature of the universe.
1927 by Roman Catholic priest and physicist Georges Lemaître developed a hypothesis about an expanding universe coming from a single point.
1929 Hubble, gathering all of the known information realized that the farther a galaxy is from us, the faster it is moving away from us. This is Hubble's "Law" concerning the "red shift."
1964 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered cosmic background radiation coming from every direction of the sky, confirming the hypotheses about a Big Bang.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
I think the idea is that The Big Bang wasn't an event within existence. All of creation is within the universe. Before the universe there was nothing, no space, no time, no matter, etc. That's the impossible to conceive part; there was no place for the Big Bang to happen and no time for it to happen, no where, no when. Whatever force caused it was quite literally supernatural. That force could be called God
Relatively recently due partly to our better understanding, scientists/physicists started using the term cosmos to represent all things including potentially pre-big bang, and universe to represent that which was produced by the Big Bang.
When physicists developed the theory to explain certain aspects of the physical universe
When people lost their spiritual connection and started getting arrogant. Most people have no clue what you’re talking about.
Reality popped into existence 5 mins ago along with all things as they are now including our memories, and we have no way to prove that didn't happen.
I do not believe we will ever know the actual size or reason of our universe..its beyond us as a species..
Yup you're sure right about that... time is better spent getting to know the Creator of the universe
I agree@@colinpierre3441
There is no creator. Grow up.
@@colinpierre3441 Amen
@@daleyoung4710 And your source is what? trust me bro?
You grow up.
What are the best books to read for a beginner/novice with an interest in the universe and space?
For a beginner, I'd suggest 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence M. Krauss.
The universe in a nutshell have good think points
Im Ok...Your OK...but space is weird. I forget the author
Electric Universe Model , Thunderbolts project, Wal Thornhill, Velekovsky
The Dream, David Icke
Can someone explain to me how these pictures disprove the Big Bang.
Caveat: I’m not operating under the assumption that the Big Bang necessarily happened.
What they thought they were observing w light before is no longer true. JWST disproves just about all they thought they knew about space. Expect that to continue your entire lifetime. Or until you find the right places to look. Or until aliens arrive. If you think following scientists is the most efficient method to get closer to truth you’ll never find it.
I would love for someone to explain this to me. If the universe is expanding at a somewhat consistent rate and it all started with the Big Bang at a central point, that would mean it’s a “sphere” expanding outward from its center.
The question is this: if we are moving away from the center wouldn’t objects on the other side of the point of origin be accelerating twice as fast away from us as those objects on our side of the starting point? And wouldn’t there be many objects that are in a somewhat parallel track with us that wouldn’t be separating from us except by a very minimal amount, since we’re traveling in the same direction? This, not all objects can be traveling away from each other with a constant speed… from out vantage point. Meaning, if the entire universe is accelerating outward and we’ve measured that at a constant rate from our position in the universe wouldn’t that put us at the very center of the universe? And that’s impossible.
You’re all over the place. The universe expands and contracts. Like your lungs. Scientists just cannot comprehend this bc it has not contracted. 90% of them are worse than useless.
Everything we know isn't false. Everything you believe is false. But there is truth and there is still time to accept Him into your life.🙌🏼🙏🏼
So what does that mean for your belief in Him??
@manofmaat i believe in Him the Truth. I do not believe the lies these clowns push to suit their narrative, so it says nothing about my belief in Him. You ever notice that the more we learn, the more science is disproven, and the teachings from The Bible and religious texts are strengthened?
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.”
Nobel Prize physicist, Richard P. Feynman
Errrr, yes. We have known that since long before Feynman. Stating the bloody obvious is not adding anything to the discussion.
@@plasmaphysics1017 He's just some guy in the youtube comments section, don't worry about it
My biology professor in undergrad once told me that "Science is a progress report of what we think we know at the time."
I personally think the universe is bigger then we imagine and is thus older, and the big bang theory will be proved wrong.
"Science is always provisional..." Wow! The dude must never have heard of Covid 19 science or climate change science. Both of those are settled sciences.
it's because it's a swirling soup, not an explosion.
I'm with Sir Roger Penrose… it had a beginning but it will have another, and another and another…
This ignores infinite regress. What was before the first beginning?
@@powerbuilder978 Why do you think there was a first beginning? There is no evidence of that but I'm interested in your thoughts?
Because if you argue for a beginingless chain of events its a logical contradiction. Its an infinite regress. This is an accepted posiion within philosophy. There has to be a beginning of matter, matter can't will itself into existence from nothing.@@Lord.Patrick
@@powerbuilder978 If one can argue that there could be reoccurring beginnings into the future (more big bangs after every heat death) then who's to say it was not always that way and has happened an infinite number of times into the past. Look up Sir Penrose's work on Conformal Cyclic Cosmology
PS… as for "philosophy" well I prefer to pay all my attention to the proper sciences. Philosophers are only one step above Theists in my book
I’ve always thought time would work differently as you got further or closer to the origin point of the universe. Any science guys have a take on that?
Given that gravity would be greater, it makes sense. Good one 😊
I think we look at the origin point as something that’s not alive when we are from it and are living. I believe that in some way it’s able to breathe in and out and sometime in irregular patterns. Idk just me throwing in my 2 cents haha but I can see why you would think that because it’s called the Big bang interpreting an explosion.
There is no origin point of the universe. At least not according to the big bang theory.
@@fred1652 that’s confusing. Then wouldn’t the Big Bang not be a central “bang” but all of existence just popping in? And if the universe is expanding then where from and to? Fortunately these aren’t likely original questions 🤣
@@alexanderbielski9327 Of course sorry I should have explained, it IS confusing, or at least not obvious. One of the fundamental parts of the Big Bang is that it begins with the singularity, which is infinitely dense and contains everything in the universe.
Because the singularity is everything, and everything is expanding technically everywhere is the center of the universe. I’m not sure if that was a good explanation but there are some good videos that cover it too. But that’s why when we observe celestial bodies none of them are moving in our direction, they’re all moving away.
When this come out, some physicists without the data, were saying they are blackholes and not galaxy, so can still have a big bang. That should tell you how revolutionary this data is!
as a non-physicist, based on the assumption that all the mass in the universe is finite, why wouldn't there be more galaxies formed in an ever-expanding universe?
Imagine that, the “science ISN’T settled”…
It never claimed to be.
@@pelgrim8640science always puts people in realities, that we think it should be until we learn something new! And we're put into that reality now until another new thing comes up. Like over 500 years ago, people thought the earth was flat. They lived in that reality
@@brandondetroitfanmichaels4325 Again, science never claims to be "settled", in fact it is a core principle in science that ALL knowledge is provisional, it is called falsifiability.
@@pelgrim8640 like I said, people live in realities until they're proven wrong. Just like people 500 years ago, think in the world was flat
That's the point of science. It constantly adapts to new information. What the hell is so difficult to grasp?
I like how he's honest about it without beating around the bush... "... science is always provisional...". Where most scientists always try to hammer home the idea that the science is the science and believe it because science.
I don’t know what scientists you’ve been listening to but none of them say that. I think you’re thinking of politicians not scientists.
@@Mugen503 well, popular science is all like that - dishonest and religious in a way.
@@derekfume8810 what even is “popular science”? Regardless what others are claiming scientists don’t make these statements which was the point of my comment. Others trying to use science for power is not the same as scientists making wild claims which is what this person is stating.
@@Mugen503 It is the same group of people that have the "We believe Science" or "Science is Real" slogans -- mostly activists that have no understanding of the Scientific method and skepticism in general.
when they sayd "the scicnec is the science" they mean at this point in time this is what we thing to be true. You are misunderstanding them
One thing about theory is that it is always subject to revisals. Our spiritual and objective knowledge should continue to grow, perhaps over tens of thousands of years. Who knows what we will know then.
As much as I can say by no means does he say in this video that it is "disproven", quite the contrary. Over many decades now there had been sufficient evidence. Only the latest tiny hint might suggest otherwise.
Conclusion: Galaxies seems to be older than we expected
Sure but they still had a beginning. Which is God. Science keeps proving God the more time goes on.
@@mycrazylife408ahh religious goons always gotta shoehorn god into it unless it’s something bad 😂
@@Sbeve_One eh there’s nothing wrong with summating about a hypothetical creator. Albeit “religious” folks are generally abhorrent. “Spirituality” is completely in line with all stem science.
@@mycrazylife408 Which God?
@@CBT5777 Christian God is the Only God.
One day they will say "can you believe they used to teach physics?" to kids in an elementary school classroom.
More likely they will say "can you believe they used to have classrooms?"
More like can you believe people didn't believe in physics 😂.... People need to understand what a theory means in science... It isn't a fact or can't be proven to be 100%true. It's called the Big Bang Theory for a reason 😂
@blinkonce29 did you know the use of too many laughing emojis in any given sentence denotes a lack of intelligence? It is call the smiling emoji cluster meter.
_a scientist_
@@seditiouswalrus Did you know that a complete stranger assuming they know your level of intelligence by counting the use of emojis in an informal comment section is......... absolutely hilarious 😂😆😂😂. Man you're smart 😂🤣 oh excuse me , I think you'd prefer "intelligent" 🤣. How many did I use I didn't count 🤣
@@seditiouswalrus I just noticed you ended your comment with " a scientist" 😂. No wonder you didn't have anything but a toddler's attempt at an insult instead of actually addressing what I said. Because what I said was true. As a scientist I hope you understand that you aren't intelligent. The men/women that actually discovered, came up with the facts,theories , data and information you've memorized are actually the intelligent ones. Not you 🤷
Where is the place(coordinates) of the explosion?
In the middle of space bro lol geez
In Uranus😂
From the initial explosion of the alleged Big Bang matter has been flying outwards away from the singularity. That would imply that matter further away is less organized because it is at the wavefront. And that is not what the JWT is showing us. We are seeing incredibly organized and mature galaxies. Please explain? Where am I missing the boat?
Indeed, I really doubt that the Big Bang is why there is redshift. The galaxies 10 billion years ago aren't different from galaxies today.
These older galaxies were invisible to us before the new space telescope but still conform to an expanding universe but from an older timeline
Yeah, with all dialogue and things discussed, it seems that the title of the video is a little silly.
Having a telescope to catch the red shift of distant galaxies into the infrared - and detecting fully formed galaxies from very early on has done one of two things:
1. Shown the universe to be much older.
2. Shown galaxies to have formed faster.
Or 3. Both 🙂
@@Stevo_1985 It's a clickbait title. Even science channels have succumbed to the clickbait disease.
@@heckensteiner4713 Well at least we're sensible enough to know how to sift through all the silly billy videos 😊
You're assuming as Einstein did that the speed of light is a constant, which it isn't. Not only has the speed of light been consistently reducing, it has been brought to a stop as well as excellerated by 300x. It may even go faster than that, but even if it were limited to 300x the light reaching us from distant galaxies would be arriving in a relatively short time.
@@aquacandela3705 Yeah, the particle horizon is something like 46 billion light years away, accounting for the speed of expansion.
Beyond that horizon is lots of stuff we'll likely never see, except of course for anything we continue to try to shift beyond visible light - which could maybe buy us a few billion more light years into the particle horizon 🙂
how old, or long can a galaxy live? is it possible that the light the JWST is seeing that galaxy is no longer around?
Yes, it is possible. But the question here is not, "Does that galaxy still exist?". The question is, "How old is that galaxy?"
Correction: how old WAS that galaxy
Yes.
Entirely possible
So, every car passing me on the highway started from a single point in space?
The particles that comprise the car? Yes
No. Space was created by the Big Bang. Space didn’t exist until matter existed.
Ok, so where is the start point of the Big Bang? I've never heard anyone explicity say where or shown a map stating somewhere around this point. It should be the easiest thing to figure out since everything is moving away from that point. If it has been reported, please add link. I'm very interested
So doesn’t this potentially alter the perceived age of the universe?
Of course it does. That’s why the Big Bang is a theory.
Yes, and will continue to change as we advance technology. Sciences does not mind being proved wrong
But scientists (being human) do, which is why any experiment or theory which can not be duplicated many times by other scientists should always be questioned. Why would you take issue with my question? It’s called the Scientific Method.
@@LarsBlock science is built on science that scientists agree on at the time of scientific research and discovery it’s all theory to a point because things change when new scientific instruments are made so the simple answer is we are never completely sure. Or we are sure then someone comes along and questions everything with the new scientific instruments and then we have to revalidate all over again. I think not sure though because I am not a SCIENTIST. Peace and love to all life forces in our wonderful universe. ♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️
Some people simply refuse to accept contradictory data -- no matter how clear it is. Meyer is just another in a long line who refuses to open his eyes to the failures of BB Theory.
Exactly, any data that can be consistent with the theory is accepted, anything that refutes it is an 'anomoly' that needs further study. Galaxy rotation shows GR theory of gravity is not correct, but then dark matter is created out of nothing with no evidence whatsoever so the GR theory remains.
These people are protecting their jobs, not the truth. The circular diagram of this "proposed event" and revealing facts can be found in the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe"
_"the failures of BB Theory."_
Where did that happen? It makes a number of successful predictions. Unlike any alternative 'models'.
Right on.
Awesome stuff. I love open questions and examination. One thing that started to make me think of possible "out side of the box" issues... just a hypothetical. When the military first got long range artillary they were missing the targets... why... they forgot to calculate the rotation of the earth... they were able to shoot far enough that the projectile was airborne long enough to have the earths spin move the target just a little off. Easily compensated for. But if the galaxies are "expanding" ... moving... like the earth, or just a calculatable "angled shift".. .not a straight line.... hard to explain, sorry. Are the "slices of light" from other galaxies in a perfect stream (analog) or broken up and more like (digital) images. Light does not bend... so if we are moving and the light stays in the same spot... my brain needs more information... I just started this thing... o my the rabbit hole is sooo deep... awesome stuff. When you shoot something in motion... you have to "lead the target"... do we get a "lead image" not in sync but in a calculatable staggered delay? Can we look ahead if the "light" is static and all you have to do is find the right angle of light. Can we go backward and find "old light" and see the past like a recorded movie?
Red shift is assumed to be because of physical changes in distance and recession, but not understood from an electrical standpoint.
So now I cannot time travel back to kick my butt for leaving college?
U did already.....it was the best move you ever made....
At least no big collage loans to pay back
So they can brainwash you into thinking cosmetic surgery can change genders? 😂 You're good.
So the key thing is whether we can attribute the FACT of observed redshift to the mere human consensus INTERPRETATION of expansion of the in-between grid. It wasn't a dumb assumption. Not at all. But JWST showed us we are wrong nonetheless. The fact it showed us furthest galaxies are as very mature AND at correct size is simply inconsistent with what we predicted to see if our standard model of accelerated expansion was correct. Lets not be bad losers here. We just did NOT predict what JWST showed. Period. It doesn't mean there never was a big bang. Just means the observed redshift is NOT related to what we thought was accelerated cosmic expansion. So no dark energy needed. sorry. There is an oscillating universe for sure, but we have to give up the idea we know its size and time limit for now (can be calculated differently though). It is orders of magnitude larger. Why can't we rejoice about this triumph of experimentalism and technology. Why spent billions on this superb instrument and simply don't dare to look through the telescope if it may proves us wrong. Something with Galileo? So then, let's now take the only sensible alternative of what caused redshift; the OBSERVED orthogonal wrapping of spacetime (and thus incoming light passing through it) at the edges of our own galaxy . We observed this phenomenon for sure at the interior of our galaxy (the redshift we call our yellowish central galactic bar, displaying Sag A* in an orthogonal projection). THAT is what causes redshift both at the interior edge and outer edge of our galactic plane. Looks like Nature first wants us to understand our own galaxy. Good riddance dark energy ! thanks to JWST we are finally put on the right track to understand our cosmos. I suggest our dear cosmologist finally dash out towards a bright new path. It's called a breakthrough. Go for it Brian!
_"The fact it showed us furthest galaxies are as very mature AND at correct size"_
No, it didn't. It showed the furthest galaxies to be less massive and with lower metallicity.
_"So no dark energy needed. sorry."_
Sorry? Want to explain the observations of the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect on the CMB photons? The baryon acoustic oscillation data? And the supernova 1a time-dilation measurements? All of them tell us that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. Let me know when your paper explaining those things is published.
@@plasmaphysics1017 Thank you for your comment. Prior to the JWST mission anyone wishing the community agreed we must observe the furthest most redshifted galaxies as 1. enlarged and 2. non-mature blobs. That were the two basic SINE QUA NONE prerequisites for the hypothetical idea of accelerated expansion causing redshift in furthest galaxies. Helas. JWST has proven us dead wrong on BOTH accounts. End of story. Sorry. It doesn't matter which characteristics you retroactively try to attribute to a lost case as you do. Let me give you a simple example; If you claim a person is a biological male and next we observe this person giving birth, then Nature has proven this person cannot be a biological male. No matter how much arguments you try to deliver to the contrary, it's useless. OK, maybe its a bad example given the current state of gender recognition in academia, but the rational general public will understand my point.
Let's just accept what JWST saw and move on. Better yet; turn this into a triumph for mankind and cosmology by simply admitting to the truth. I gave you the correct alternative explanation for redshift. I hope you take the message that was sent to you by JWST. Thats all we can do. We need to regain trust in academia and this is not helping.
@@RWin-fp5jn Word salad, sunshine. Deal with the evidence I mentioned. You can't.
@@RWin-fp5jn _"I gave you the correct alternative explanation for redshift"_
No you didn't. You haven't got the foggiest idea about redshift. You made up a bunch of impossible gibberish.
It's an opportunity!
Heisenberg astronomy: everything we say is correct until we attempt to observe it, after which everything else we say is correct except for that thing we have now observed and been proven wrong about.
Nobody said the Big Bang didn’t happen, they did say it might have been longer ago than previously thought.
So who or what created the "Big Bang". Nothing can just happen from nothing.
Basically electric universe theory is more relevant now… simply fits so well.
😢 are lying again.
Fit is not reliable. A spiders web looks like the pattern you get when a rock hits reinforced glass. The moon fits almost exactly over the sun. These things are just coincident patterns.
How does this even remotely lead to that conclusion?
@@BrooklynSkateUSA By working for CNN LOL
This ain’t disproving the Big Bang and it literally shows evidence of it lol
There is something irrefutable about cosmology, it is the most obvious and clear fact and I take the position that it will continue in the future. That we have always underestimated how big the universe is. It started as a flat earth with a rotating sun, and progress even bigger and bigger and bigger, until now we even think it is too big to even see/detect how big it is. That should tell you something important.
It's so big that even light can't be bothered to cross it and tell us how big.
God holds the cosmos in the palm of his hand. If it was expanding, there wouldn't be any room for anyone in heaven.
It shows how full of schitt a lot of "super smart" scientists really are.
Also , maybe we do not really know how small we are. To a molecule just one human body seems like an unmeasurable universe
The time line doesn't add up . A fully grown galaxy at the farthest distance disprove's the bang
The universe is a torus. Everything in the universe is cyclical. Fractals are even cyclical. We're just at a point within the torus that we can't tell whether it's expanding or not.
None of this has brought the big bang into question. This is just a combination of sensationalism and ignorance.
They were never gonna straight out admit they were wrong.
You really don't understand how scientific research works at all. Not only is there no better way to make a big career for yourself than by being able to disprove dominant theory with compelling empirical evidence, but the entire incentive structure in academic science compels individual scientists to provide novel findings. There is such an overwhelming disincentive for replicating already known results that it's difficult to even get many such studies published because the findings aren't viewed as making a significant contribution to the scientific literature. Grant applications that don't have sufficient novelty aren't even funded to begin with. So every single aspect of conducting scientific research highly incentivizes disproving existing theory and falsifying dominant paradigms. That's why it's actually quite meaningful and important when many decades of research produce areas of understanding upon which large majorities of researchers and scientists agree. "They" are all trying to prove the others are wrong, all the time. I know. I developed a theory of human brain function that is standing up to three decades of people taking potshots at it. So far, it stands. If it ever gets toppled, it will be a happy day where our understanding of the brain and our ability to help people improves. 🇺🇸
Who are “they”? What exactly do you mean?
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . we must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
― Max Planck, The New Science [From Lecture, 'Das Wesen der Materie' [The Essence/Nature/Character of Matter], Florence, Italy (1944)]