I've always been thinking there seems to be little proof of the age of the universe, as we can only see so far back as light will allow us. And it would be very odd if there wasn't a lot more outside our view.
15:53 If that satellite video is one minute of lightning those clouds are super sonic. The Earth turned four times in one minute! I think they meant it was a 1 minute time lapse of a longer time "4 days" The video is made of single frames taken when lightning is detected.
What makes it imperative that the universe had a ”beginning”? If it did, then there would seem to be even more questions. Like, what was there before the big bang? Where did all the energy/matter come from? Will it have an end, and if not, then why have a beginning? Infinity is such a difficult concept for us, but what if there was no beginning, instead, a series of re-orderings of structure on a scale we still can't imagine, in an infinite space, expanding and contracting in immense swirls beyond our observation...?
I don't think you need to worry, high quality hand made items always have demanded a higher value than machined items in a competitive and comparable market. Quality will be the difference for sometime to come.
The distant galaxies can't be twice as old as our Milky Way galaxy because then it would mean the stars in our galaxy didn't form until 13.9 billion years afterwards. The oldest star in our galaxy is only 13.7 billion years old. So how could those distant galaxies be older than ours if a single big bang did happen? There has to be some other reason and I believe I stumbled upon the reason why several years ago. Simply put, we've all been duped about using a telescope to see back in time. I published 6 books before the JWST was launched in 2021. In the first paperback book on page 48 I wrote quote, "James Webb Space Telescope will discover old, fully grown galaxies as far as the telescope can see, further than 13.8 billion light-years away." I know exactly why there are old, fully formed galaxies some 13.8 billion light years away.
any telescope sees back in time, in fact your eye does the same the light that you see is delivering the information to you from surrounding events that have happened zepto seconds ago, you see nothing on live
Since space is expanding, and the speed of light changes in different mediums depending on its density, what if the spacetime fabric is getting thinner as it’s expanding and causing the speed of light to change?
Isn't the gravitational detectors as LIGO detecting that? I am confused on how that can work. How can the time the it takes for the light/photons to travel back and forth change when the hole space time warpes? Doesn't everything including the photons warp with it.
I have seen deer jump the fence at Jefferson Proving Ground, here in Indiana, it's about 12 feet tall with a barbwire V top. Good luck keeping the deer out.
@@Kabup2 Coyote's for sure, they did talk about reintroducing grey wolves but I'm not sure where that went. I used to deer hunt a farm on the north fence and it was pretty cool, to watch war planes fire on their targets.
I'm curious about whether the 'c' in say the Fine Structure Constant is different under the Tired Light idea. I mean, is that how the author explains the constants changing since several constants depend on 'c' being constant?
Book Club: I would highly recommend "The Art of War" by Peter Cawdron, the latest book in his "series" "First Contact" that explore humanity's first interaction with extra-terrestrial life.
Deer only respond to hunting pressure or electric fence... they destroyed every fruit tree i had in Georgia. I've got a huge cage around my apple trees here because moose will tear them up.
The Apollo process of using a single super-large launcher was chosen because an in-orbit rendezvous inserted more complications than just building a massive rocket. New experience on in-orbit rendezvous launches has obviated that advantage.
Isn't the theory of inflation similar to "physical laws changing over time"? If we accept inflation, it seems like it's not a good reason to throw this out.
Could the "two-faced" white dwarf star be the result of a collision? For example, a collision between a helium white dwarf and a mostly-hydrogen gas giant planet?
Carbon, Nitrogen and Oxygen are very common in the universe. We should not be surprised to see these elements combining chemically with the most common element, Hydrogen. This is obvious to me, with my minor in organic chem. Flipping obvious ❗❗
A photon travels at the speed of light which is equal to the speed of time. A photon cannot “age”. That’s why Einstein referred to “Space-Time”….they are the same thing.
Which Culture book did you consider mediocre? I know which one people generally like the least, but it happened to be the first one i read, which makes me love it.
BTW, @DrBecky (www.youtube.com/@DrBecky ) said in her recent Short that she will have a deep-dive into the "twice as old as we thought" idea in her weekly video next Thursday (Jul 27, 2023)
If the beginning of the universe had a greater density of matter wouldn't that mean more gravity ? Wouldn't more gravity mean time running slower and light would at least appear redshifted if just because time was running slower? Are any of the big brains taking this into account or they all just assuming its expansion based only? Who can I ask?
How do photons get tired when they experience no time? They just forgot to count looking both ways, since it's twice the age. :-) I think the obvious answer, if we are interpreting this quick galaxy formation data correctly, is that the galaxies formed faster when the universe was a lot denser. Why people would NOT think that is the case is beyond me. It seems kind of simple, stupid, obvious, actually...doesn't make it right, but just sayin'. If you have more crap closer together it is going to clump due to gravity in a lot less time, since the distances are shorter. Also, I'm not exactly buying this 'we know everything' from a 'galaxy pixel' crap, yet, spectra or no. You can learn a lot, but nothing like if you could look at a sharp picture of those galaxies. To say otherwise is ridiculous.
Could you please not use the word "debunked"? This is a scientific publication, not a conspiracy theory. Hardly helps the scientific process to throw such loaded terms around.
Re first story: You didn't mention how the whole paper is moot since the "old galaxies" have already been explained. From what I recall, the puzzling age story concerned unconfirmed rough measurements of the overall red color, which typically reflect the Z value. But follow up observations taking the *spectra* of these high-Z candidates have found that the extra-red galaxies are not due to red shift after all, and they are nowhere near that old.
I think red shift is the answer for many of the cosmic mysteries. Dark matter, age of the universe, etc… Once matter is redshifted enough its basically undetectable. Matter moving at relativistic speeds away from earth = undetectable.
I don't think anyone has a telescope that could take advantage of that kind of lift capability, but there are missions that could have their flight times shortened.
Afaik there is consensus that these are quantum excitations of underlying quantum fields? Who is seriously using the particle analogy anymore apart from historians and popsci authors?
@@ashnur Yes, but that paradigm yields a slightly more accurate model, that in itself, can only be analogous representation of 'true reality'... if such a thing actually exists. In fact, quantum field theory, although logically sound, seems like a paradigm regression, akin to the luciferous aether.
@@ashnurexcitation or not, its still a particle. All particles are excitations in their respective quantum fields. The excitation models didn't replace particled, it explains them. Same was as einsteins gravity didn't replace newtonian gravity, it explained it (further). Or how quantum models of atoms, with electron clouds and different cloud shapes never replaced the bohr model of the atom, it just explained it better. All of the above are correct ways to look at something, some just more detailed than others. Light is a particle (sometimes) and when it is, it is an excitation in its respective quantun field. Sometimes its a wave, in which it behaves different (and doesn't quite physically exist in the traditional sense)
@@MrMegaMetroid no, it really isn't "just a particle", that's the whole point. People who say "just a particle" are making several mistakes I think, and I am not sure I should be the one responsible for educating every one of you. And the reason is that the particle models never really worked as well as newtonian gravity works, and in fact, you run into paradoxes like 'wave-particle duality' which people like to pretend is some quirk of the small scales, when it's actually just the manifestation of using wrong models. You don't pick a wrong model you don't get conflicting answers.
I do love lagrange point (planets). lol As for the deer getting into your garden. A trick I have seen on two channels (living traditions homestead a few years ago and Stoney ridge farmer last year or early this year), that really seems to work is to put two fences behind each other with a space of a few feet/yards. Because deer are bad at judging dept /distance, they don't jump these double fences. Stoney Ridge only uses a simple electric fence around his raised garden beds.
Yeah, I'll probably shift to electric fence. I've got a living fence I'm growing out of willows. It's awesome, but it needs another year to really get filled in.
@@frasercain another possible solution to your deer problem is a motion sensing sprinkler. Doesn’t hurt the deer, very effective, and cheaper than electric fence.
@@stevewagoner9894, doesn’t work here. Our deer actually use the crosswalks to cross the road. People do stop for them too. Our deer are very small and sneaky.
Blackberries grow wild around here, so I figured that even I should be able to grow them. The problem is that I hate getting torn up by the thorns, so I bought thornless hybrid blackberries. Neat, eh? Well, that was a mistake. It seems that normal blackberries have thorns for a very good reason. We're overrun with deer, here in NC, and the deer have figured out that *_my_* blackberries have *_no thorns._* I'll probably never get to eat a single blackberry from my plants.
Hey I'm very happy that my art is useful for a cool FC video's thumbnail again! Will vote for the trojan planet in the poll, though... Lagrange beats the Universe in my heart 💙
Great episode and thank you for answering my question on last weeks episode about the true age of the universe. Pretty much what I was figuring, but you answered it in a way that makes perfect sense. Again, fantastic episode. Love the channel!
Most things about space are theory's, like the big bang that IMO is to often talked about like its a fact, its a theory. Science of to day is becoming like religion was 500 years ago, to many fanatics. Hope i wont get the Inquisition busting my door down now. Love the channel and im not saying you are a fanatic mate❤.
Really enjoyed the way you framed Gupta's paper. It's good to challenge foundational ideas periodically. I was preparing for bed when you said, "the photons just get tired," and that woke me up. :D
Fact is we can't explain the data we're seeing. Unleash the competing hypotheses! :) Also, Debunked is the wrong word to use here. Chalenged is better. As for that 2 faced white dwarf, could it have been two stars that collided in the past?
Island deer are relentless. A lot of our 'deer resistant' flora ended up as hors d'oeuvres. They don't go for the Lavender or Rosemary. We ended up building a greenhouse, its the only way. We like the deer, especially round this time of year when the fawns play with the baby hares, absolutely priceless.
I'm putting my money on more than 100 billion years old. Also: No dark matter. No dark energy. And no expanding universe. It is abundantly clear to me that redshift has essentially nothing to do with the relative velocity of an emitting body, and that our idea of the size of the universe, and the distances are so wrong they aren't even wrong. Variable Speed Of Light explains it, nicely. I pity the scientists whose entire careers have been based on wrong ideas.
I saw Joe Rogan sharing the story on Twitter of the age of the Universe being 26.7 billion years old and my first thought was, well Rogan is good with MMA information but other than that, he is almost always wrong, so it's probably not true lol. Thanks for making this video.
Place short barriers at right angles to the fence on the outer side. Deer like to run up at a shallow angle to the fence in order to more easily clear an obstacle, sort of like what a high jumper does. The short barriers make the wall work as though it were much thicker.
50 years ago the universe was thought to be 8-12 billion years old. Then we started to find things that were older than 8 billion years so the universe got older. Before that it was only the milky way. Befor that it was the solar system and a sphere of stars. I don't see what the big deal is this time. We have always thought the universe ended at the limit of our vision.
Trojan planet: I recall recently, PBS spacetime did an rpisode on the formation of the moon, and Eath's collision with a large body, Theia. Theia was depicted as a trojan planet, that slowly drifted out of L4 towards Earth. Then boom! Maybe we're seeing the precursors to that! :D
two-face white dwarf --- you know I was wondering if it's understood or answered whether or not the sun might have uneven density across it's mass ,, so,, inside of earth is suggested to be "lumpy" ,, jupiter has a huge storm ,, might it be possible that the sun has "lumpy parts" ?? And then,, would this mean that it's gravity is not evenly distributed?? DOes the sun "rotate" on an axis, and therefore would this lumpy parts be "orbiting" around the suns center?? I mean mercury's orbit is "better" explained now that einstien didn't actually believe he was right about his relativity theory,, but it's still off,, meaning there is error and therefore room for more explanation. ,,, perhaps mercury is being affected by an uneven gravitational pull from the sun as a lumpy uneven mass distribution results in gravitational anomalies (you know, like every single other object astronomers have ever successfully measured?,, ever,, with no exceptions??_)
If our galaxy is 13.51 billion years old and the big bang was 13.8 billion years ago, our galaxy was formed 290 million years after the big bang. We are a cosmic dawn galaxy!
I think it’s possible that the question “How old is the universe?”, could be meaningless. Because…. Time itself, may be meaningless. Insofar as, our concept of time is based solely on our perspective of it, as it passes here on earth. But time is “passing” differently from one location to the next (due to the “local” density of any given region of the universe). More dense, slower time. Less dense, faster time. Just as in the twin paradox, each of the twins reports a different amount of “time” passing, and neither one is wrong… What if the twins both traveled at the speed of light, away from each other… one going to “park” beside a super massive black hole…. The other going to “park” in the middle of the largest, emptiest void? And then they both return at the speed of light to the starting point. Near the black hole, time would pass very slowly. In the void, shouldn’t time pass very quickly? Seems to me that the universe itself, really has no way to “tell time”…. So who could really know how old it is?
Would i be wrong to say. Lets imagine we managed to survive for say another 150 years??? Would we possibly look at theoretical physics Science Astronomy and so on as dedicated but hugely and sadly hugely incorrect. I just think at present we know more about rats than we probably ever will of Astronomy and the cosmic evolution. But i truly love the pictures of James Webb. My imagination goes on a long long drive.
Just thought of another possibility.. boiling atmosphere. If this planet rotates slowly and has one side pointing towards the sun for a lengthy time, this could keep one side always "activated" via high thermal turmoil. Just a thought. ;O)-
Fraser, I have what I hope are thought provoking questions. What efforts are you personally taking to preserve the jobs of other workers who have already, or will in the future, lose their jobs to technological innovation? Do you personally refuse to ever use the self-checkout lanes at stores? Do you pay for farmers to hand plant and hand pick your food? How about the coal miners who have lost their incomes? How about the 50% of trash haulers who have lost their jobs to recently upgraded trucks. Or, are journalist the only people that you believe deserve to continue to have jobs they love, while also making a very good living? I ask you to just imagine how many truck drivers will lose their families' livelihoods once self-driving vehicles are widely adopted. Will you also fund Patreon for all the construction workers and manual labors who already are very poorly treated by the entitled classes? I constantly think about the disrespected people doing the hard thankless jobs in our society. I am personally just much less concerned about the privileged people who aren't sacrificing their own bodies to help everyone else. These are just questions. Thank you.
Eh Big Bang is always going to slip this way. I don't get how people say it "holds up". There is another correction needed every few years, we're well passed 13 sigma-1 level corrections. The cosmology is mathematically correct in the same sense that a coffee mug is a torus and a cow is a sphere. There is a cosmology where a coffee cup is a coffee cup, and that's always going to break the theory. Saying oh well, lets just say it happened at a different time in different conditions. No, the theory is not holding. It stopped holding at inflation. It was broken at hyper-inflation. This isn't a critique of the astronomy or the physics, only the math which is known to be poor at modeling flow and distribution
Funny, but one year of JWST, and no signs of alien life nowhere? And mature galaxies from very early, and still no life shows up anywhere? Surely those aliens must have time enough to find a way to spread to the universe, but still... I guess the hipergates can´t exist, after all... or maybe we are alone...
Tired light is an interesting quality in a photon according to the physics I've been shown. Your 'early' discussion I think is based on the 'age' of the universe that you have in your head. I studied A.I. in college at MSU in the late 80s. I want NO news from the A student I saw.
I do not think it is that a photon "Just gets tired" but has a very minimal amount of interaction going on over massive distances, that would otherwise disappear in the noise of error bars.. Since I seem to remember a photon being claimed to not be massless as first thought, just very very tiny amount... It might make a bit of sense. Maybe as it passes through large electromagnetic spheres of influence? Something "dark" is keep galaxies from flying apart when star go to fast... So I do not see how you out right dismiss it when you do not know waht that "dark" thing is. IT is called "dark" as we have no clue, afterall.
I can feel sunburn, warmth and sound. Do I really feel what I taste/smell? Why can't anybody hear me scream in space? How can heat travel at the speed of light? I haven't been this confused in ages...
Imagine if it's possible that the speed of light would take billions of years to transverse a "known" universe, regardless if it's only a few million miles across (probably before first light), or if it was a trillion times larger than today. This would require that the speed of light would remain constant to the expansion (and possible contraction) and not as we would think the constant should be. How would distant galaxies and their age appear if light was really going much slower, billions of years ago? The universe would have to be much older? If it took billions of years for light to transverse a big bang that was only a few feet across, imagine the eternity of time - and the almost infinite age of the universe, billions of trillions of years old - from our point of view? Perhaps, gravity would have a different change of constant, meaning total confusion for us trying to figure things out at the large scale.
twice as old is relative to now, and how the mass of the universe is distributed. Back then the universe was smaller, its tick rate would be faster. The more you squeeze the universe back into a singularity the slower things would appear from our perspective, like a year around the infinite density that was before the big bang would be billions of our years.. and a 1cm cube of spacetime would be bigger than the observable universe if you could magic it here right now
Idk you seemed pretty happy a few months ago with chat bots and using them for everything you could, when people were already sounding the alarm. But Now suddenly it's a race against time :)
This new Chinese rocket, does it have a retrorocket? Or are they still just landing where ever they please? And last time, that could have been New York City. Just a matter of time.
Tired light, with the gravity wave background as a possible source of slowing, might be the viable answer, since we have found a GW background it means light travels more or less than a meter every meter and the fluctuations add up.
I still think time is mucked up. Even though it is relative when the universe material was close together around the big bang or whatever happened, wouldn't it have happened infinitely slowly at that time due to gravity. Even though by todays time we think it happened quickly. Ie as we take things back towards the big bang, time effectively slows down as it gets condensed towards the end
I think you are misinformed or just plain wrong about the segment that shows one minute of lightning. If you observe the clouds moving, a cloud cluster the size of Italy moves hundreds of kilometres during the segment. Clouds do not move that quickly, even in the Jetstream. Not to mention that it appears that several days pass during the segment, as from a geostationary orbit one can see the transition from day to night several times. The segment may be one minute long, but it shows a much longer timeline than one minute.
Agree tired light + changing of physical constants seems ridiculous. However the universe is much older and that calls into a lot of things. Date of the big bang, expansion of the universe at an ever increasing rate?
At least there is someone out there who dares to question the dominant theories (or should we say beliefs?) about the universe and at least achieves some media coverage, unlike the small group of scientists who have been challenging them for years and nobody gives a shit, even though they demonstrate that out of a dozen or more predictions of the Big Bang theory, at most two or three hold true, leaning towards two. There's still trillions of years to go, but well, at least it's a start.
Lol. Remember when I was saying that in proper science you first have the theory and then you do the experiment and that astronomers are doing the opposite? In any case, we still haven't fully ruled out variable speed of light, there are theories that are not about tired light but are still theories of variable light speed that are compatible with all experiments.
