You never fail to impress Skydivephil! Coming right out of the gates with one of the big guns in current science, and such a great communicator Niayesh Afshordi, and always taking on the most pressing issues of the day. Before I discovered one of your videos a few years ago it took me a few "Who the f*ck is Skydivephil, how does he get from skydiving to climate change, and why should I click on this and find another moron selling false beliefs or woo, or another incompetent making a fool of themselves caught in a dunning Kruger vortex before I watched one and was blown away for your straight to the point and right to the core approach, add the professional presentation and production... You are not just a true gem for a social media find, but real potential to be a force to be reckoned with in the connection of scientific reality and political ongoings on a world scale! I really think you qualify as Nobel prize (Peace) candidacy, and hope the PBS's and BBC' of the world take notice, and put you out there and give you some reason and resources to advance this! Knowledge, more so and even first and foremost education, more specifically being taught and given the tools for how to think (not what to think) is the essential key to the survival and advancement of the human race in a universe with the odds so highly stacked against us, to the point in light of that, that we ourselves are so freaking flawed that most of us go through life with no concern about actual reality, no desire to believe in as much truth and as little untruth as possible, no attention to our own influence on others and the ever so present complaints about having to sleep in a bed you help make standard issue... so all the stuff you seem to be fully aware of; The human condition, or may I say conditions as there are a vastness of them, and you are a rare breed for it! Also: If I ever catch you in a mistake (fat chance), I will point it out, if you ever change face (shit happen), I will try to pull you out of the rabbit hole, and if you ever lie and to me expose a nefarious agenda, I will pounce, but until than I won't miss a video of yours unless it's tech's fault out of my control, because you and whoever works with you rock big time!
Wow I’ve seen interviews with Niayesh before and his ideas were “novel” but I am not sure what point he’s trying to make here. He says that their current data suggest a 1% difference at a 2-3 sigma confidence. That sounds like science but it’s not. A difference in what? He cited a plethora of things that GR theorizes that “might” be wrong… maybe non constant G, maybe preferred reference frames, maybe scale dependent, maybe no big bang singularity. Seems to me like he’s throwing a handful of darts and making it sound like there is something novel he has found. Everyone knows that there are disagreements in H0, just as with large scale gravitational observations but at least the scientists who put forth theories like Dark Matter, MoND, etc actually verbalize what they are going to measure to validate the theory. It seems to me that he doesn’t really have an answer except that they are going to look at Euclid and DESI data. While he’s at it, maybe he can check if having pancakes on a weekday changes G.
It's normally more than a slap, but a slap in the right area and in just the right direction... Oh dear I remember those days, and don't even get me started with new and novel ways to hold and direct an antenna, making contraptions of tin foil and other metal things, duct tape... Oh the insanity!
@@zebrachess Oh lucky you! In our neck of the woods we had to use hubcaps and other junkyard finds and build huge contraptions in our living rooms, often restricting our ability to get around! Oh, and you cannot stand here, here, and over there, but you can stand over there but don't raise your arms or it will throw off the signal!
I realise this is utterly trivial in context, but I am quietly delighted to see that Dr Afshordi still uses a blackboard and chalk. When I started my teaching career, back in the Dark Ages, this was the norm, and I was rather sad to move to OHPs, white boards and smart boards. I'll get my coat ...
There is a ether for gravity, it's called space. Gravity is a result of interaction between energy(mass) and space, as suggested within general theory of relativity. The one thing Einstien did not suggest is that I postulate is that there is a saturation point in which there is a limit amount of energy that can be stored within a certain unit of space resulting to a plane of space not a singularity. If you work this postulation backwards, the amount of gravity should work differently within a galaxy compared to what you see in the void since within the space in a galaxy the space is some what occupied compared to space within a void.
Yep I was expecting some sort of strange area of space with cosmic string like effects or something else very unusual. Still an interesting subject matter though.
The title states that “astronomers claim the is a glitch…”. The interview was with one of those astronomers who spoke at length about his belief there is a glitch. Not sure what you see as misleading…
@@ArtemisFaulken The video title is just quoting Niayesh Afshordi's words which is fair enough, then it is he who seems to be using the wrong word maybe to catch peoples attention as this video title does, a glitch is a temporary fault which makes it sound like a physical fault in the universe when really it is about changing our understanding of gravity. I thought the video was very interesting so I am only pointing out that the word glitch feels incorrect.
Here's an idea for fiction-writers: The glitch is not space/distance based, but rather happened when early cultures all over the universe (a few billion years ago) first started using time travel.
To prove that quarks (subatomic particles) are more real while protons and neutrons (atomic particles) are less real, we need to establish a clear definition of what we mean by "real" and then provide evidence or logical arguments that support this claim. Let's approach this step by step. Definition of "real": For the purpose of this proof, we will define "real" as being more fundamental, indivisible, and closer to the underlying nature of reality. Proof: 1. Quarks are the fundamental building blocks of matter: - Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks. Protons consist of two up quarks and one down quark, while neutrons consist of one up quark and two down quarks. - Quarks are not known to have any substructure; they are considered to be elementary particles. - Therefore, quarks are more fundamental than protons and neutrons. 2. Quarks are indivisible: - Protons and neutrons can be divided into their constituent quarks through high-energy particle collisions. - However, there is no known way to divide quarks into smaller components. They are believed to be indivisible. - Therefore, quarks are indivisible, while protons and neutrons are divisible. 3. Quarks are closer to the underlying nature of reality: - The Standard Model of particle physics, which is our most comprehensive theory of the fundamental particles and forces, describes quarks as elementary particles that interact through the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces. - Protons and neutrons, on the other hand, are composite particles that emerge from the interactions of quarks. - Therefore, quarks are closer to the underlying nature of reality as described by our most fundamental scientific theories. 4. Quarks exhibit more fundamental properties: - Quarks have intrinsic properties such as color charge, flavor, and spin, which determine how they interact with each other and with other particles. - Protons and neutrons derive their properties from the collective behavior of their constituent quarks. - Therefore, the properties of quarks are more fundamental than those of protons and neutrons. 5. Quarks are necessary for the existence of protons and neutrons: - Without quarks, protons and neutrons would not exist, as they are composed entirely of quarks. - However, quarks can exist independently of protons and neutrons, as demonstrated by the existence of other hadrons such as mesons, which are composed of one quark and one antiquark. - Therefore, quarks are necessary for the existence of protons and neutrons, but not vice versa. Conclusion: Based on the above arguments, we can conclude that quarks are more real than protons and neutrons. Quarks are more fundamental, indivisible, and closer to the underlying nature of reality as described by our most advanced scientific theories. They exhibit intrinsic properties that determine the behavior of composite particles like protons and neutrons, and they are necessary for the existence of these atomic particles. It is important to note that this proof relies on our current scientific understanding of particle physics and the nature of matter. As our knowledge advances, our understanding of what is "real" may evolve. However, based on the current evidence and theories, the argument for the greater reality of quarks compared to protons and neutrons is strong.
See there is no expanding universe: All systems have some kind of power of expantion just like say our sun, next level are groups of stars wich will have a higher order of expansion, after comes super clusters of stars that must have a higher rate of expansion, maybe then all form the galaxi that has a much gratter out put of expansion, then come clusters of galaxies, super cluster of galaxies and so on but as the system grows so the out put of systems. and by that power of expansion is the need of space separating one from another - NO EXPANDING SPACE NEEDED.
Extremely interesting, so it seems that constants are in fact not really, or the universe is not isotropic. Unrelated, but i cant wait for the muslims screeching if we ditch the expending universe theory.
PS colour only exists in brains, the universe is monochrome. photons just have energy levels and wavelengths, the colour gets applied when those values get to the "sight" part of our brain. if you weren't already aware of course.
@@HarryNicNicholas Also, a rainbow is not a pure spectrum. It is actually made up of a myriad of individual spectral colours that have overlapped and mixed.
@@HarryNicNicholas the cosmos has 6 mayor wavelengths just like a rainbow - we could say the cosmos that we see orders in six levels and the center is were we are in.
Light speed can not be constant as there are levels or steps that Alton Harp called STEPS - Not even in same level ligh speed is the same - Say if you come from the outentering red level, here light speed will not be the same as you are go down to jump to orange and so forth.
(8:18) The existence of 'some kind of' aether does not prove Einstein wrong.. He was the first to suggest it in his (very famous and well known) address at Leiden Univ, 1920. It turns out that every time we prove Einstein wrong what we are proving is that we didn't listen to him carefully enough.
@@CesarClouds Bell proved that either (1) there is non-locality, at least in some form and for some quantum phenomena or (2) we cannot speak of properties independent of the observer. Nobody knows which is it. As for Einstein and QM, the jury is still out. The day we understand QM we will see. IMHO, Einstein was a devote realist and therefore could not accept (2). He died before he could think about Bell's theorem. He understood that an option to solve the problems of QM was embracing non-locality, which he found no good reasons to do. But had he lived to listen to Bell's arguments, I'm quite confident he would have taken the correct path and considered alternatives that included non-locality without violating Special Relativity. In the meantime, there we are, fumbling around and making true the famous Feynman dictum: Nobody understands quantum mechanics
@PhilHalper1 Those terms all seem a bit unscientific to me. Of course "black hole" and "Big Bang" have entrenched themselves out of long term conventional use, at this point. My comment here is just that it's a vague, goofy term to coin, from a scientific perspective, which makes me think it is meant to be catchy rather than descriptive. I mean, what the heck is a "cosmic glitch"? Nobody can tell!... unless they read further in the study to find out it refers to an apparent inconsistency in general relativity. As such, it can hardly be considered a "glitch" in the cosmos, which implies a problem or malfunction in the cosmos or gravity itself... rather than a likely deficiency in the prevailing theory of gravity, which is what the study actually indicates, unless it's a result of a problem in the observational data or its interpretation. The cosmos does whatever it does, regardless of our best theories about it. Observations about gravity that seem to disagree with our prevailing theory can hardly be attributed to a malfunction of gravity or the cosmos. Or do you think that is likely? When Hoyle coined the term "big bang", his intention was as a striking image to distinguish it from the previous consensus view of a steady state universe. Not a great choice of terminology, but then he did not intend it to become the name of the theory, as is clear from the context in which it was coined. And in fact, it did not catch on as the name of that theory until a few decades after Hoyle used it. "Black hole" is perhaps a bit more excusable... Wheeler chose to use it, reportedly because it was suggested to him as a less cumbersome alternative to his previous terminology, "gravitationally completely collapsed object"... and since the defining feature of this object is the inability of light to escape from it, it has some descriptive value, as did "big bang". "Cosmic glitch" has no such discernible descriptive value.
@@PhilHalper1 Those terms also seem a tad unscientific to me. Of course "black hole" and "Big Bang" have entrenched themselves out of long term conventional use, at this point. And there is a history attached to how those terms entered the common parlance. At least those are each descriptive to some degree of the phenomenon they refer to. "Cosmic glitch" has no such discernible descriptive value. Especially when it refers to "apparent inconsistencies with the predictions of general relativity" at the scale of galaxy clusters and beyond, according to one of the paper's authors, R. Wen. The commonly used definition of "glitch" would normally refer to some sudden problem or malfunction, usually temporary, in some machinery or process. The phrase "cosmic glitch" implies that it is gravity itself that is momentarily malfunctioning, rather than what the paper itself suggests, that our theories might need reexamination.
When Hoyle coined the term "big bang", his intention was as a striking image to distinguish it from the previous generally accepted view of a steady state universe. Not a great choice of terminology, but then he did not intend it to become the name of the theory, as is clear from the context in which it was coined. And he did not use it in the title of a published scientific paper. And in fact, it did not catch on as the name of that theory until a couple decades after Hoyle used it, when the media latched onto his quote and ran with it.
"Black hole" is perhaps a bit more excusable... Wheeler chose to use it, reportedly because it was suggested to him as a less cumbersome alternative to his previous terminology, "gravitationally completely collapsed object"... and since the defining feature of this object is the inability of light to escape from it, it has some descriptive value, as did "big bang".
to me electro and magnetic forces ALMOST CANCEL each other and what is left its GRAVITY that to me its CMB. We could say that the sun s light is the HOT LIGHT and as it is reffracted back from the electromagnetic halos of systems it comes back as CMB or cold light.
He cannot control your browser (where you can set it). Content creators can add them to the video (many videos don't have any), but they cannot turn them on or off universally for all, nor is there even a setting for it. If you turn them on they have to exist for you to see them. I didn't get any CC on this video, but it has happened where when I was trying to capitalize, and hit the [Ctrl] instead of the [Shift] key something unexpected happens, like turning on CC, or changing the view... So that's a possibility.
@@penguinista It can get crazyer: Sometimes I put focus on the browser for whatever reason, and then I look at my text editor and start typing without activating it first, and so the browser picks up all of the keystrokes and flips out in all kinds of ways, and it's not always easy to undo!
terry pratchett. i haven't read any terry pratchet so i',m guessing, but i just wanted to get in there first and say it. pratchett must have a parody of big rips in there somewhere, no?
To me there are no black holes at the galies center - the way i see it is that all systems making a system entangled or meet at the center of the the systm just like DNA DOES that is in cross section.
