I just wanted to say thanks for adding chapters to your content which allows us dorks to skip the introduction section of the related science that we are already familiar with, in spite of it negatively impacting a key metric for the channel. Most comparable channels post “news” content where 80% of the video is the basic science we already know.
With so many instances of lensing and light bending between and here and Out There, I would be surprised if anything we look at is in the actual direction we are looking in. This mocked up Grafik, if true, proves my point. I wonder if they know which reflection is the actual nova?😊
It's about keeping the trousers on for new sensationel mystery cracking machine fundings! Wasn't science once about trying to explain the obviously appearing? Not about computing variations and building machines to be confirmed. And if nobody else can but the Swedish King ... no sorry this is to cheap to just think. But it's fun!
@@travishartman5662 spoken by an educated young guy. there is a reason that our next president should not be 78. senior moments are real. and senior afternoons too.
Some of our best astrophysicists are senior citizens. Education is only the beginning, requiring constant exploration and experience to yield expertise. That takes time.
In my opinion... Just out of curiosity, has the Webb been pointed between Leo and the Bull, looking for the planet that the Sumerians said came around every 3.6 K years or so? i think the calculations say it about 200 years out or so. It's supposed to be red. Or is it supposed to come from another direction? Good job on the video. Thanks.
@@michael.forkert Adjust your foil hat, it is too tight. As for gravity bending light, although it is true that photons have no mass, the extreme gravity is bending the space-time. So, in a sense, it is the gravity bending the light.
3:00 at 3 separate times? That's so fascinating 🤔 I would have assumed at the same time... ... so gravitational lensing has 3 dimensional properties I have never considered! I'd like to learn more about that! (Amusing that the 3min mark is where the 3 are mentioned, haha)
There are 3 images because the lensing is done by a cluster of galaxies, that is, a distribution of mass. If the lensing was done by a point source, like a black hole, the light from the distance galaxy would be smeared across an arc. But since the mass of the cluster is unevenly distributed, the lensing is uneven and can create separate images. You were taught in physics class to replace a distributed mass with a single point one. This works if the mass is far away but sometimes you need to use the distributed mass. One example is the following map, the map of the ocean floor made by measuring local gravity. Satellites measured the height of the ocean surface many, many times and averaged them out. A mountain range underwater pulls more water over it and the water above it is a little higher. Similarly, the water over a trench is pulled away from above it and the water above is a little lower. It's the differences in the mass that causes the differences in gravity, which causes the differences in heights. When the heights are greatly exaggerated, you get a map of the ocean floor. newatlas.com/nasa-satellites-gravity-map/41358/
Is it too much to ask, if there are before and after photos of the same patch of sky, even with different telescopes/cameras, that you show BOTH? i.e without and with the supernova? Maybe a little more rigor in your presentation might have prevented all the lunatics from chiming in. And PLEASE drop the computer generated narration, or at least proofread it.
I really think gravitational waves influence our perception of time. I've been posting this for years, now.... Time is fascinating. I worked the subway stations for nearly 10 years. From one end of the city to the other. Every so often I would notice the city would be saying that, "Today just flew by" or "The day was just dragging along." How can an entire city, with no interaction with each other until they used the subway, complain about the same time paradox? Unless they were all effected by the same outside, "interference." MAYBE a time distorted bubble the earth passes through in its revolution around the sun. MAYBE they're the effects of gravitational waves. Either side of the wave effecting time just enough for we humans to notice. Making time seem to drag on the upside and fly by on the downslope. Or, vice versa. MAYBE they're given off by the sun. MAYBE they're from outside our Solar system and reach us in intervals. ???? 🎶Ti-i-i-ime, is on my side. Yes, it is!🎶 If you can think of a better way to do a blind survey of an entire city, in the small window of opportunity, I'm all in. Until then, I invite you to spend a couple years in the subways during rush hour and you'll see for yourself. Just listen as an entire city gets off of work and gets out of school. You'll see it's more than a, "coincidence of circumstances."
OK, I don't want to come off as dumping sour grapes on this, but where's the breakthrough promised in the headline? The MOND theory is far from well established. For one thing, it doesn't fit all the data. For another, it hardly qualifies as a theory, since it goes back to Newton and then artificially tweaks is to fit observation. It does nothing to generalize General Relativity (GR). Newtonian gravity is a local, special case encompassed by the more general theory, GR. In other words, GR implies Newtonian gravity as a local, special-case instance of GR, analogous to the world looking locally flat, while in the bigger picture it is spherical. (Don't try to tell this to the flat earthers.) A genuine breakthrough will happen when physics discovers a theory still more general than GR, but which implies it as a special case. MOND is far from that. I think Claudia de Rham's theory may be the best bet so far, which gives the graviton an infinitesimally small mass and also eliminates the need for dark matter.
This video is content slop. Made to get views for the sake of getting views, and not to teach you anything that's not already known. There is no discovery. You got duped.
@@verigumetin4291 I think I just said the same thing, or did I obscure it with all the objections to the clickbait headline? Just informing others who suckered for the headline exactly why this is so much ado about nothing.
I had to stop watching this vid: the AI voice continually mispronouncing “type one.. a supernova” and other inhuman inflections creeped me out. Please use a real human next time!
When we look for expansion values of the universe, we constantly come to different values. However, the entire cosmos cannot be categorized, as there are too many local (and also time-period) differences. These regional differences are particularly noticeable in the different expansion rate of our infant universe and the current expansion rate obtained from nearby objects... 👀
If spent gravitation in the background between things is causing this sagging of the whole spacetime, more as time goes by because objects have given off more gravitation longer. You do not need fancy answers, the gravitation that bends space around the sun or earth continues out to background regions and gathers and has affects that resemble inflation given enough time over a great enough space.
If a Photon has ZERO Mass, how can gravity affect it? Gravity can only affect something that has Mass. Or why does a massless Photon have a speed limit? Inquiring minds want to know.
The Photon is unaffected by gravity. The photon always travel in a straight line, but gravity warps the space around large masses. It's only our *observation* of light that seems curved. Even in the Photon Sphere around a black hole, the light travels in a vector straight line, according to the photon, even though the space around a black hole is severely curved. A photon doesn't experience time, so according to it, it didn't experience it moving even one Planck length from conception till absorption, even 10 billion light years away.
🟥🌑🌑🌐🌑🌐🌑🌐🌑🌑🌑 The multiverse is more or less a given. There is more logical evidence for than against, but also empirically - with QM, Double Slit, Virtual Particles, Spontaneous Quark Doubling, etc etc. There are close to an infinite number of universes within this universe and holographic principles alone should be sufficient enough. But regardless - try to entertain this thought: Given an infinite amount of parallel and/or asymmetrical universes, there must be a universe where entropy is reversed. It is a 100% mirrored replica of our universe, but with “time” going backwards. The inhabitants of this universe perceive everything just like us - it is a total carbon copy of our universe. But observed from the outside, that entire universe would flow backwards. Who can say that WE don’t live in such a universe? The only way to even begin to understand that our own entropy is reversed, is to observe it from another universe. From the outside a flashlight would catch the light and the waterfall would flow upwards. How can such dimensionality be understood within the confines of our own entropy? 🌐🌑📀💿🌑🌐
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics including the CAUSE of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light and well..... everything.
@@davidrandell2224 There is no such thing as a TOE, because it might only be applicable to our region if space, either in our observable space, AKA our Schwarzschild metric or our observable quadrant. We're part of an infinite expanse or we're insude a black hole and a theoretical TOE will only be able to explain what is according to us. The laws ot physics and fundamental forces might be wildly different oncr the observer crosses the boundary between one universe and the next.
According to Einstein, gravity is not a force. In his equations, matter (mass) warps spacetime and everything (including light) just follows a straight path through that warped spacetime.
Blaming it to the Dark Matter, to start with, was already evoking the made-up realms of mysticism, right? How about finding a valid explanation that requires neither mathematical triple back-flips nor arbitrarily defined wudu magic… Even I have one of these explanations, home-made - and everyone should have one in order to feel intellectually comfy. What we, I believe, have is a rather limited set of fundamentals, one of them most definitely being the “rules of nature” - which is the complete(!) set of rules governing events in our discoverable universe, whether that event affects space-time/matter-energy or not - and merely the application of the rules to the events creates the illusion of some (or even all) of the experienced phenomena (or full set of stimuli) we, conscious beings perceive. What am I doing all day for 30 years? I’m trying to design a (now) Python code that ASSUMES that my picture of the world is (somewhat) correct - we will see if it works… or we won’t:)
" This discovery helps refine measurements of the universe’s expansion rate " Amazing ! Refining the measurements of the expansion rate of a non expanding universe.
What you are watching is a self appointed you tuber who purpose is copy and paste only. He displays cgi images and cartoons from his box room. Grow up excitable screen huggers 😂😂😂
It hilarious how they expext us to believe it isnt chromatic aberration when we know we are looking through partially ionized gasses and icy dust.. the gravitational lensing theory requires all wavelengths to bend equally.and this is not seen in this onservation...
There is no such thing as a Hubble constant because space doesn't expand at the same rate everywhere. The value astronomers get is a Hubble average after taking the acceleration of hundreds of galaxies and diving the total acceleration by the number of galaxies to get an average acceleration, not a constant acceleration. Take any 4 galaxies located at equal distances from the JWST, and measure their recessional velocity. They will be different. Thus proving space is not expanding at a constant per Mpc. Look at the galaxies that Edwin Hubble measured. Astronomers take all their velocities, add them up and then divide them by the number of galaxies because none of them have the same acceleration rate per Mpc. If anyone claims otherwise they are fraudsters. The data speaks for itself. Edwin Hubble measured galaxies that clearly didn't fit the dark energy or Hubble constant postulates, here are just 4 galaxies out of hundreds he measured. Galaxies A & B were both 16 megaparsecs away. Galaxies C & D were both 93 megaparsecs away. Galaxy A was receding at 500 km/s which is 500 km a second / 16 Mpc means it's accelerating away from us at 31.2 km/s per Mpc. Galaxy B was receding at 6,500 km/s which is 6,500 km a second / 16 Mpc means it's accelerating away from us at 406 km/s per Mpc. Galaxy C was receding at 3,500 km/s which is 3,500 km a second / 93 Mpc means it's accelerating away from us at 38 km/s per Mpc. Galaxy D was receding at 10,200 km/s which is 10,200 km a second / 93 Mpc means it's accelerating away from us at 110 km/s per Mpc. Not one of the galaxies accelerate away from us at the same rate per Mpc. None of them fit the Hubble constant. Even if we take their average acceleration we get a different rate than the Hubble constant. 31,2 + 406 + 38 + 110 = 585.2 / 4 = 146.3 km/s per Mpc. They don't fit the Hubble constant of 70.4 km/s per Mpc. No matter how we spin it, there is no such thing as a Hubble constant! Don't let anyone try and convince you otherwise, because they're lying.
The Hubble constant doesn't say all galaxies recede at the same rate, it 100% acknowledges that the distance to a galaxy determines how fast it's receding. Since they aren't all the same distance, of course they aren't predicted to all recede at the same rate. There is such a thing as the Hubble constant, and it is the fixed, predictable, observed relationship between an object's distance and the difference in the rate it's receding. The problem is that two different ways of measuring/observing this result in two different values for the constant. It's not random, it's not made-up, and it doesn't depend on which distant objects you look at or how distant they are, except to the extent that some distant objects can only be measured one way or the other way.
@glowingfatedie Astronomers claim the universe is expanding at a single rate called the Hubble constant. They measure it as an acceleration per Mpc and try to assign a single value to it. Of course galaxies all recede at a different rates, but this rate is supposed to be a constant per megaparsec. So the further they are the faster they'll be moving away from us. The point I was trying to make is we can take 2 galaxies at the same distance from us and they will be receding away from us at different rates. If space was expanding at a constant, then pairs of galaxies at the same distance from us should have the same rate of acceleration, but they do not. Did you even read what I wrote? 2 galaxies A and B and galaxies C and D were equal distances from us yet the expansion of space between us and them are completely different. In fact, contradictory to the Hubble constant of 67 or 70 km/s per Mpc. Galaxy C at 93 Mpc away was receding slower than galaxy B which was only 16 Mpc away. Explain that. If the expansion of space was caused by dark energy and this dark energy was causing space to accelerate exponentially with distance, then why is a galaxy 16 Mpc away receding more than 10 times faster than a galaxy 93 Mpc away? Shouldn't the galaxy further away be receding faster? If you're trying to convince me I'm wrong, then you clearly don't understand what I'm trying to say. Serious? Not one of the galaxies I mentioned above agree with a Hubble constant. They are but 4 out of trillions of galaxies out there. So please explain how the Hubble constant can be considered "fixed, predictable, observed relationship between an object's distance and the difference in the rate it's receding" if with just 4 galaxies the Hubble constant is shown to be flawed?
@@ronaldkemp3952 You're wrong, that isn't what the Hubble constant is. The Hubble constant is the relationship between how far away something is and how fast it's receding away from us, it's not supposed to be taken as the single speed with which everything everywhere is receding.
@@glowingfatedie You are wrong, not me. If it's not a single speed then why do astronomers using the redshift method give it a velocity of 70 km/s per megaparsec and call it a Hubble CONSTANT, then claim there is a Hubble Tension because the CMB places the the expansion rate at 67.4 km/s/Mpc, a different value than the redshift. So if it's not a single speed then why is there a Tension between the methods of measuring? You appear to be misguided as to what the the term constant is supposed to represent.
@@glowingfatedie The worst waste of time is arguing with the fool and fanatic who does not care about truth or reality but only the victory of his beliefs and illusions. There are people who no matter how much evidence we present to them are not in the capacity to understand and others who are blinded by ego, hatred and resentment and all they want is to be right even when they clearly are not.
The Hubble tension , along with the latest quantum negative time experiment all could be solved much closer to home. Just go into any factory or workplace. 30 minute dinner breaks last 5 minutes. The last hour at work lasts 3 hours. Solve this and I think you'll get the Nobel Peace Prize. 😉
Hubble’s ‘law’ is so flawed. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics including the CAUSE of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light and well..... everything.
