It's odd when you hear, "We aren't realy sure about the mass and we aren't really sure about the expansion." You get the feeling that poor old gravity is in the hot seat again...
In the movie The Fugitive a cop is taking questions from a skeptical media about whether Harrision Ford really killed his wife. The cop replied "Look, he was convicted in a court of law, he's guilty". We know that he was innocent. Every time I hear NDT I think of this cop.
This video is excellent... appropriate balance of procedural scientific revelation, popular misunderstanding, and relevance in human history... loved it.
This is one of the best videos I've seen describing our origins from a scientific view. Not a "We know, we know", but this is what our observations draws us to.
Yes, if one can ignore the JWT deep field images of the garden variety spiral galaxies with stars over a billion years old exist a mere 180 light years away from a supposed Big Bang.
Most scientists I hear say this all the time. They say things like our current knowledge tells us or as far as we know .... This is what the oil companies have used against climate scientists to convince the gullible that because they have modified their predictions as new research brings new information there is no global warming.
Edwin Hubble discovered the galaxies expanding, not the universe. Nobody is told this anymore but Hubble and many of his peers never accepted Georges Lamaîtres interpretation of what Hubble discovered. They thought it was too religious. Why wouldn't they think that? The creator of the theory was a priest and a universe cannot have time and then have it. That is a creationist theory and there is no place in science for it. That's why nothing ever makes sense.
kerrym9254. You've hit the nail on the head. The Big Bang "theory" (and people get hung up on the word theory, also as in the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Relativity; another way to look at it is the Big Bang Model) has arrived at this position PRECISELY BECAUSE of observations and analysis OF those observations.
The question "Is The Big Bang Theory Wrong?" was never addressed directly. I suspect that this video was inspired by some of the observations of the James Web telescope, which has been making quite a number of observations that go against some of the Big Bang predictions of the early universe.
None of the observations “go against” the predictions made by the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang happened we can see it. What has been observed is galaxies forming sooner than inflationary cosmology expected. It’s not like the Big Bang just disappeared because the earliest galaxies formed 100,000 years prior to what was previously calculated. It just means that we were not aware that galaxies could form so soon after the universe became opaque. This is good because it helps us gain a better understanding of the mechanisms by which the Big Bang occurred.
@Greg LeJacques whether that is true or not. There is evidence that a Big Bang occurred within whatever realm of reality you choose to imply. It happened and we can see it. Why would you need to push something that is an observable part of reality. It’s like saying that certain people are pushing that during daylight hours the sky is blue.
@Greg LeJacques plus I absolutely agree that there is no sign of a magic sky daddy creator. The universe is here and nobody knows why, it just is. It’s a fundamental trait for human beings to need to understand things. The whole creator story is just an example of the conclusions people used to come up with when lacking the scientific method.
The more I hear from different physicists, the more I come to think that we are actually living in a black hole. The singularity would have been the initiation of that black hole. The constant expansion through dark matter, the increasing speed at which that expansion is happening and so on. And as we know through Hawking, black holes do radiate. If our species were ever to take advantage of that, there is a distinct possibility that we could actually leave our universe and look at it from the outside. Of course there's lots of assumptions being made here. But they seem to be the ones that make the most sense.
There is no end. Infinite. You are not living life only you are life. You do not have a life only you are life. The Creator and you are one or oneness. Impossible literally impossible to think otherwise.
Sooo if the universe is expanding we could never find life on another planet because the planets would be moving away at a speed we couldn’t overcome and we’d never reach that planet?
Most of the sound that we hear is a wave of air, i.e., the compression and rarefaction of the air. If you take away air, you take away sound. It is like draining a pool. With no water, you cannot make waves.
it is an explanation of how bad science or theology works. speaking from lack of evidence as law is the problem. the very concept of science law existing beyond reality or evidence, then you have conjecture. sometimes we are wrong. just because we hold to a theory, does not make it true. and the stupidity of religious science is that new concepts aren't allowed because they dont fit the model. the big bang was fact in the 1950s before we found out the universe was so much bigger and older. cmb fact proves big bang then we find there are galaxies in the 'background', really old galaxies are too far back in time, not everything is spreading out, we dont know how big the universe is, the physics must have been different in the singularity..... how about, the model doesnt work lets stop beating this dead horse and rethink.
@David Mudry i find gravity tends to work as a theory pulling objects toward each other like magnets and buildings stay up because the stuff below it resists further movement toward the earth. but a net zero framework is there because they arent floating or sinking. but these are very simplistic versions. my issues are when things like the CMB are believed to be a fixed amount, but different measurements have resulted in vastly different numbers. add to that the newish knowledge that where they were looking actually had sources of energy in the form of galaxies etc, This suggests to me that the CMB is clearly BS. if it were not BS the number would be a constant not an average, and it would be the same when you measure it again. or constant.
@David Mudry so says the new suggestion. i say if i drop an apple it heads for the ground. i would argue that we are not the center of our own relative universe that is 'new age theology' that is very old. but drop a hammer with your foot under it and tell me if your foot hurts. the speed of light is fixed is BS disproven by different mediums it goes through. but you go ahead and accept gravity doesnt exist just warped space time. i think rather things like red shift shows both that gravity can change the speed of light, and therefore light speed is not fixed, but stuff is still affected by what we call gravity.
@David Mudry no. in a plane or rocket the pull toward the large object still exists. the difference between what you feel has changed, but just because it doesn't feel like you are falling and accelerating towards the earth doesn't mean its not happening. i dont feel us speeding round the sun, but i still am. my frame of reference only affects my perception, not reality itself. that was/ is ancient mysticism. the old if a tree falls in a forest with no one around to hear, does it make a sound. yes. physics does not require us to understand it first. we are not the coyote chasing the road runner off a cliff. we arent so important that our perception / frame of reference changes reality.
Science Saturday! (Though per my own bias, science is no less interesting on Monday or any other day, and sometimes wakes my sleepy mind at the most fascinating times.) Enjoyed this video. Thank you!
One of the many reasons why I love to listen to Tyson, is that he is one of very few "elite" scientists who is extremely careful about using the word "fact", and calls theories exactly that.
Scientific theory is fact. General theory of relativity is fact, Einstein showed how it could be proven and everyone tried to disprove it, he was spot on and now we use it every single day in our normal lives.
Except that’s just not what is being meant with theory. Theory can be factually right or wrong and are about mechanisms to describe phenomena. Hence hypotheses are used backed up with theory to determine via experimental procedure what’s fact and fiction.
In another 500 years, general public might find out what people in "old ages" thought of the Universe and how it was born. And they will laugh their butts off on our stupidity and ignorance. 😂😂😂😂
I once asked a theist if I could present him with absolute proof that there was no God, would he change his mind, and he said he would not. Then, taking the bait, he asked me if he presented me with absolute proof that there was a God, would I change my mind? "Of course I would" I proclaimed. "I'm not an idiot!" It's true that I got the idea from somewhere, but I really did have this conversation. (The look on his face was priceless.)
I used to have 2 church guys that would come visit me to debate. I grew up with the bible but dont agree with it overall. It was always good fun debating with them. The one question that really broke their brains was "Which testiment describes god?" Taking into account all of the books not just those of the bible, even the book of Judas, which god is real?"
@@dralord1307 Even just from the books included in the standard Bible, God comes across as having an alarming combination of personality disorders. Nothing against Christians, but I find it difficult to have faith in something that changes their mind so often.
@@vanyadolly Yup lots of people only read the parts they want. Most ppl I have talked with completely discount the old testement. Not many notice the vast difference in tone about the crucifixion between the books either.
I believe space time will contract at some point in time and black holes will reach the center of the universe at the same time faster then speed of light. I believe that big bang is a conflict between energies in a short period of time.
Einstein’s equation E=mC² and the Big Bang premise of the video necessarily infers that the force carrying particle of the Big Bang, (BB), had to evolve into matter as it cooled because there was nothing else but energy particles to combine into the structure of matter. The narrator hints that light was emitted from the BB 13.8 billion years ago and my choice for the BB force carrier is Planck length photons which are composed of 4 brane and 3 brane strings, (with the 3 brane being the source of entanglement), interlaced on the surface of a prolate spheroid that has protruding positive and negative poles. These poles are functional worm drive gears that allow these extremely powerful photons to tightly daisy chain via charge coupling into chiral loops that evolve to form matter. The initial matter structure is the formation of a one to three aspect ratio torus, and the tori can break open to form straight shafts approximately 10-20 Planck’s lengths in diameter. These shafts and tori combine to form a gravitational working fluid, (aka quantum gravity), as an ambipolar solenoid, (aka gluon), that have counter-rotating shafts, which amplify any ambient electromagnetic fields they encounter to produce a much more powerful local field. This photon to gluon evolution of energy to matter continues to this day inside each spherical particle of matter and the gluons that are released from the electrons and atomic nuclei interact with other particles as quantum gravity. The gluons can then daisy chain via charge coupling to form fluids and even fuse with activation energy to form ring shapes that combine to form the charged fields constituting the shells of leptons and baryons by spinning in a gyroscopic configuration. The gluons can condense in galactic EMF via Feshbach resonance to form fluid droplets, (aka dark matter), that are dispersed by cosmic rays back upon the galaxy to generate the Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation to manifest the excessive rotational rate of galaxies. The gluons generate gravitational thrust by penetrating the spherical leptons and baryon and accelerating as a super-fluid waveform in their sub-wavelength cavities to generate vectored thrust as exhaust from the South pole of the particle that polar orients toward the dominant gluon flux. The exhaust is vectored by the external quantum fluid formed by gluons on the surface that were at an acute angle or were too slow to penetrate into the spherical particle. This surface fluid also forms a dual membrane slipstream at the equator where the fluid from both hemispheres collide to form a dual membrane slipstream resembling the plasma in a disc MHD generator field. That field interacts with the gluon flux to stifle acceleration as space-time viscosity by absorbing the momentum of the flux thus generating an opposing thrust to gravity in a manner similar a sea anchor opposing the thrust of a ship’s propeller. This slowing of the gluon flux via the viscosity mechanism eventually renders the flux to slow to penetrate the spherical particles and instead enhances the viscosity field to manifest dark energy as a “sea anchor” where the gluon flux crossing megaparsecs is repulsive but the fast local gravity still attracts its target. This is why the galaxies in high Z super-clusters act like windsocks in the laminar flow of the slow gluons, with all galactic disks in the same plane and with their long axes all parallel to the direction of red shift propagation. Indeed, the Hubble constant is just a measure of the average percentage of gluon slowed to a repulsive velocity over a megaparsec. Et voila, the Big Bang photonic energy conversion to matter that evolves into an expanding universe.
@@drsatan7554 well isn't that special? The rotor rings are rapidly synthesized in succession, as each absorbs activation energy, thereby allowing the larger and weaker rings to survive in the lowering temp and pressure.
@@tomlakosh1833 what in the firetruck are you talking about and how is it relevant to how matter first formed by nucleosynthesis? Are you some sort of simpleton who spews out big meaningless words trying to sound smart?
The singularity that expands into our universe demonstrates that at least one time a black hole can expand and disassociate into something that is not gravitationally bound. Except for mass and rotation are all singularities equal?
Here is my question I would like to pose. If the Milky Way is part of the universe, and of course it is, then how can the "universe" move away from the Milky Way, which Earth is a part of. This is probably a silly question, but I have never heard this concept explained. Wouldn't the Milky Way be expanding, or moving at the same speed as the rest of the universe?
There's a bunch of empty space between us. Gravity is the weakest fundamental force but it has *potentially* infinite range If two galaxies aren't moving closer because of each other's Gravity then that's because they aren't within each other's gravitational fields There are no solid bars connecting the celestial bodies. They is empty space between them
No it’s not wrong. There are a lot of people who want the whole of scientific understanding to be wrong because they think that would mean that magic is real and they are special tho😂
@@david111davies yes there is a lot that science doesn’t understand yet……. Nobody would deny that. Also a scientific theory is not a theory in the general term. They are not just some guys cool idea. A scientific theory must be able to make accurate predictions based on the mathematic that make up that theory. They must be testable and pass every test put forth to them. For example Einsteins general theory of relativity made predictions regarding large bodies of mass bending starlight which it not only does, but does so to the exact amount that the mathematics of the theory predict. It also predicted that time tick differently for objects that are closer to bodies of mass and based on the velocity of an object relative to another which have also been tested and proven to be the case also to the exact amount that the theory predicts. Also relativity predicted that gravitational waves would be caused by massive bodies of mass colliding and these were detected also to the exact amplitudes that the theory predicts. Gravitational lensing was also predicted by relativity which again have been found to be a thing plus objects are lends to the exact amount that the theory predicted. I could go on, but I’m sure I’ve made my point here. Remember… a scientific theory MUST MAKE TESTABLE PREDICTIONS. THEY ARE NOT JUST A BUNCH OF IDEAS DREAMT UP TO EXPLAIN THINGS WE CANT UNDERSTAND. A good example of a theory in the colloquial term would be something like the bible. The bible is a great example of a load of ideas dreamt up by people in an attempt to explain nature without any evidence nor testable predictions being put forth. Mic 🎤 drop
"It's perfectly normal in this day and age that in the vacuum of space there would be a build up of differentials for a dead horse being beaten around the track for yet still another lap. Although the total invariant mass of the system must be conserved when transformed into lighter nuclei accompanied by spicy kimchi-flavored ramen. The spice must flow. A chain reaction of cyberpunk sunflowers can occur although the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain. Invisible aluminum is a real thing that defines it pretty well. Coincidence? Maybe so, but it’s happening time and time again to whirlpools of iguanas. Round and round they go directed by radio communication exchanges, creating unusual geometric patterns. It's all part of the thrill of champagne wishes and caviar dreams. The science and math behind liquid nitrogen proves over and over that catalytic converters just need a good rinse and quasiparticles of the fractional quantum Hall effect. Fermionic waves are always an answer to recent questions and vastly increase scientific transparency about freshly mowed grass. I mean, if you don’t have that, what do you have, really? The more you know, the less you don't know." ---Albert Einstein
I know it’s wrong because I’m positive we can’t think beyond limiting everything, especially so concerning the universe, and considering we’ve just started, as galactic time goes, it’s just fun learning at this point.
It's not wrong..... We don't fully understand it.... Very different. If someone was murdered, we know they are dead but we then investigate how it happened and why. We know the big bang happened, we can see the aftermath. We are still just investigating how, why, etc.
A theory nor even a hypothesis should not be taken as wrong or right until every piece of the proverbial "puzzle" that can be taken into reasonable consideration fits the overall picture as the answer to the subject in question . Just how solid a given conclusion may appear to be tends to depend on any number of factors and may well be subject to further revision as warranted.
I used to teach STEM. I would never say, "This theory is wrong," or "This theory is right." I would say, "The evidence does not support this theory," or "The evidence does support this theory." I also taught in a Catholic school. I frequently reminded my students that the Catholic Church does not oppose science. In fact, they are great proponents. After all, the BBT was proposed by a Catholic priest!
When you call it the "beginning" like so many people do, you are already starting out on the wrong foot. It is not the beginning, nor does it claim to be. It is what happened right before espansion. That's it.
@@vashon100 yeah maybe I'm just first grade material lmao 🤣 anyhow, is just the way Tyson explains his statements with so much clarity as like when your being taught Reading or English for the fist time and as you can see I struggled a bit there 😅
Expect space experiences vacuum energy which causes space its self to constantly expand. So it doesnt slow, instead it speeds up as more space is created.
The original Big Bang Theory [BBT] was that the Universe began as a singularity which exploded outward, an Expanding Universe. Later on, the BBT was revised such that the rate of the expansion of the Universe was now thought to be accelerating ever since it began. As far as I've been able to ascertain, proponents of the BBT have yet to explain how this expansion acceleration can happen, and it's only given a 'name' -- called 'Dark Energy'. I imagine it as an inside-out view compared to how one might describe a set of motionless bits of matter materializing within the Earth's gravity well and beginning to fall towards the Earth's center from an initial zero velocity at an ever-accelerating velocity, but then the rate of acceleration somehow increases -- almost as if each bit of matter is also being electromagnetically attracted to the Earth too, and not just being gravitationally drawn to the Earth's mass. Now, imagine the 'sphere' of the Universe's 'edge' drawing galaxies (and everything else) OUTWARD from positions relatively at a 'center' of the Universe, that 'edge' having so much mass as to exert a tug on matter such that each galaxy 'falls' (accelerates) towards the nearest part of the 'edge' -- and, perhaps, that 'edge' is also exerting electromagnetic forces on those outwardly 'falling' galaxies, increasing their rates of acceleration beyond what gravity alone can muster. All of this is based on the assumption that the observed red-shifting of light from distant galaxies is due to the Universe expanding -- the so-called Cosmological Red-shift. The higher the red-shift a particular galaxy may have, the further away from our observation point it is, and the longer it has been moving. But there's a problem with this assumption about the Cosmological Red-shift, and its name is NGC 7603. This is a Seyfert galaxy located in the constellation Pisces, and it is accompanied by a companion galaxy called PGC 71041 (as well as two quasars positioned along a 'bridge' of material connecting the two galaxies, that 'bridge' being an extension of one of NGC 7603's spiral arms. All four objects appear to be interconnected, associated with each other. But here's the kicker: they each have different recessional velocities, based on their observed red-shifts. These red-shift recessional velocities (in kilometers per second) are 8700 [NGC 7603], 117,000 [the QSR nearer to NGC 7603], 72,000 [the QSO nearer to PGC 71041], and 17,000 [PGC 71041]. By my calculations -- based on a Hubble Constant of about 68.88230648 -- these objects are at distances (in Megaparsecs) from our Milky Way Galaxy of 126.3 [NGC 7603], 1698.55 [the QSR nearer to 7603], 1045.26 [the other QSR], and 246.8 [PGC 71041]. These four objects should all be the SAME distance from us, seeing as how they are physically linked together -- but their recessional velocities are NOT the same. Here we have evidence that the expansion of the Universe is ALLEGED to be happening based on an ASSUMPTION that the Cosmological Red-shift is due to universal expansion, a Doppler shifting of light analogous to the lowering pitch of a receding train whistle. Until proponents of the BBT can come up with a rational reason as to why these 4 objects -- two galaxies and two quasars, all inter-connected -- have different red-shifts and, hence, different recessional velocities, I reserve the right to question the assumptions they have regarding the cause of the red-shifting of light from distant galaxies. It seems to me that there is some other cause which -- at least partly -- leads to the red-shifting of distant light-sources, a cause which has nothing to do with the relative apparent motions of galaxies in a supposedly expanding universe. NGC 7603 and its companions don't fit in, and seemingly defy the tenets of the BBT. Perhaps the JWST can take better images of these objects. Clearly, more information about them is needed in order for scientists to correctly ascertain the validity of the current 'consensus' view of cosmology promulgated by BBT proponents.
To me the math or expressions, or equations, do not break down at T=0. Time is a mass-energy ratio, and what T=0 is telling you is that energy is at a zero or equilibrium "pure" state, but the structure of the supposed singularity will shift and restart the whole process all over again; i.e. giving rise to another big bang. As for Aether, well, there's a retired physicist in the Philippines who argues for a quantum field "Aether" that acts as a pressure field. It explains so called dark matter and energy both, and seems to offer new insights. As to whether it holds up to experiment I do not know, but it is a fresh approach to an old conundrum.
Why is it assumed the universe expands as a single unit, or that red shift is caused by expansion and not some other phenomena? If "bubbles" of space, i.e. discreet areas if space expand individually, the observed phenomena would be as we see it. Also, we know lensing is a thing, and we know chromatic aberration is a thing, so that would result in red shift also. No physicist has addressed or explained this.
One problem is JWT is finding new galaxies at the edge of the observable universe that break the models. They seem far more orderly than expected. So that is an issue.
When I was a child, I was told there is a God that created the entire universe and the earth in a week, just by letting it happen. Later, I was taught that the entire universe was locked in something the size of a pea. One day that pea exploded for some unknown reason and this explosion lasted until the present day, creating everything we know. Now, when I tell my grandchildren, I honestly find both theories equally bizarre.
It is a repeating pulse. Explosion, extension, contraction, explosion, extraction, contraction and so on. When did it start? It is not important to know.
“How did the Universe begin” is not the correct first question? “Did the Universe begin” is. And if the answer given is yes, an explanation has to follow.
"This is not how it works" sounds awfully lot like an opinion. You can verify something many, many times and still disqualify it on a whim. Example: Euclidean parallel postulate as an axiom. It occurs to me that the word "theory" is used way to often to describe hypothesis. Euclidean Geometry is a theory albeit biased to a particular set of axioms. Big Bang is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.
The only problem I have as a scientist and atheist is explaining to believers what was before the big bang and where the big bang came from and what started it. For them this is than the point where they say: So than this was God. And I have problems replying on them
Well, part of the problem is that 'Big Bang' is a terrible name. At best, it was a super tiny event, and there was no 'bang' because there was no air in space. Also, the theory doesn’t adequately explain certain aspects. Why 'Big'? How did the 'Bang' happen? It's like naming a theory 'apple theorem' and then discussing orange juice. Moreover, what kind of theory requires adding 95% of unknown substances to make it work? That's a 20-fold error. It's akin to a child claiming to have two PHDs after the first year of school (the additional 19 being 'dark education'). So, rightfully, people question if the theory's name is wrong, what else could be? If you need to add (fake it to make it ) 95% material to fit observations, it's not science; it's prophecy.This is precisely why a Priest read the Bible and formulated the Big Bang theory. Just like other observations, such as everything appearing to orbit around us, leading to the belief that we are at the center of the universe. It's astonishing that people still refer to observations as facts, much like those who claim the Earth is flat, because, based on limited observations, the horizon appears flat. The Big Bang theorists are, at best, like divorce scientists who conclude the main reason for divorce is marriage based on observations alone. Without mathematics, it's not science; it's philosophical speculation. Mathematics clearly shows that 5 does not equal 100, and it's time to abandon such religious-like beliefs and seek better theories.
@@jameswright... I think the point is that some facts are proven wrong in science when new discoveries are made. Then it's not a (true) fact anymore. Of course we must work on the facts we know at any given time, but science is very much about always questioning and test what we know.
@@bennylloyd-willner9667 Science is done by us mere apes so open to errors, luckily it has methods to help avoid this with peer review etc and rarely says fact, it does however have laws that are fact within it. It is the best we have for answering questions, the answers it has work to improve and extend our lifes as part of the evidence of fact. But science has no say in fact, thing's are the way they are in the universe as fact regardedless of what we know about them, science just helps explain find out about those facts and understand them. If we never looked at the shape of earth and still thought it was flat with no evidence otherwise and had no science we'd still be wrong. Facts are facts irrelevant of what anyone thinks or science may say or know about them, if something is proven wrong it was never fact in the first place. But science works!
I seriously disagree with the "where energy and matter were a primordial soup" comment, certainly when they say that if you want to convert energy into matter you have to create an equal amount of antimatter, there was no matter at the big bang, it still had to be converted into matter and antimatter, and 1 out of 1000000001 virtual matter/antimatter particles didn't annihilate and became matter. Or is there suddenly no more matter vs antimatter crisis? I even may have an issue with the HOT dense state, I don't think it was hot, I think it was extremely cold and at a very low entropy. If there were no forces yet back then, then there is no heat energy, no kinetic energy, no radiation, no strong force, no gravity, no weak force, no electromagnetism, and you need all of them to have a HOT dense state, so he's assuming that GUT theory is correct, and it hasn't been proven yet and probably won't be proven.
I think we're having some linguistic problems. you keep wanting to say light is a wave but it's not propagating through any medium. A wave, however, is just that. The propagation of energy through a medium, so, whatever light is, it's NOT a wave. I think light being a particle works just fine. and light doesn't have to be a wave because it, somehow, must have a frequency. A machine gun fires bullets at a certain frequency. That doesn't mean the bullets are now a wave. The emission of light could be compared to a rapid fire shotgun, which would fire a bunch of tiny beads at once, and then again and again, over and over, in rapid succession. In this model, every photon is exactly the same. There are no red or green or x-ray or microwave photons. How they interact with matter depends on how many photos per unit of time are being absorbed or defected or even re-emitted by the atoms the photons are striking. photons absorbed by the electrons of an atom can change the electrons orbit around its nucleus which would change how it interacts with the atoms around it. this could cause the molecule the atom is apart of to change in some way, change the configuration of its atoms, ejecting some or absorbing others from nearby. The absorbed photons could be re-emitted at a different rate than they were absorbed, causing them to have a different "frequency" or color and then interact differently with other atoms.
WOW! YOU should go and teach the physicists then. You are SO MUCH smarter than them. Go and study the dual nature of light. Both particle AND wave. And when you do that, you will begin to understand just a LITTLE BIT of quantum mechanics. And it DOES NOT have to be within a medium to propagate. That was the Michelson-Morley investigation. Light being absorbed by atoms causes the electrons of the atom to jump up (a "quantum leap") to higher energy levels. The light must be of a VERY SPECIFIC frequency or energy. When the electrons LOSE that energy, they emit light at a VERY SPECIFIC frequency or energy. Standard high school physics will introduce you to this concept and first year University Physics will expand on it. You study this by looking at the line spectra of specific elements and compounds. LOOK it up! Each element has its own characteristic line spectrum. Hydrogen - take a look at those! And please understand that by "light", it is not meant to be VISIBLE light only! These spectra are in areas of the EMR that are not visible too. It is clear that you have some "ideas". But these ideas have been thorough tested many many MANY times. Photons are real. They are particles. MASS less particles. They also move as WAVES! Knowing this it is easy to explain why window glass is transparent to visible light and NOT to ultraviolet. You can't get suntanned/burned through window glass. Thanks for your interest, but please go and read the actual KNOWN physics.
Job 38:4-6 Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. [5]Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? [6]To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone.. '
I think it goes like this. At first there was the Big Bang(Planck Era begins) A few seconds (?) later there were quarks and electrons (end of Planck Era) Then the quarks formed protons. Then the protons and electrons formed hydrogen atoms, H ( H =1p+1e). Then hydrogen clouds were formed. Then gravity pulled these clouds together and they formed protostars. Then gravity compresed the protostars, nuclear reactions begun and the stars were formed. Inside the stars the nuclear reactions created heavier atoms/elements (like oxygen, O) . Then some stars explode and the heavy elements were spread into the universe. Then some elements/atoms combined and created molecules (like the water molecule, H-O-H). Then gravity pulled these molecules together and matter was created (like water). Then gravity pulled matter together and planets, moons, asteroids (water+other matter) were formed.
@@djeff7141 nah;that aint it. Ha ! Actually I found out later that carbon monoxide mixes with the "O" and the "H" and zingo bingo,we get H2O and water is formed. Who knew that gas was good for sumthin ? 'Preciate the effort though.
The flat universe is likely a box. A flat universe doesn't support the concept of Cosmic Inflation from a curved singularity. CMB Radiation showed that the universe was not a curved universe. So the Big Bang was not like a breaking of a curved geometry of spacetime. Therefore, the CMB radiation doesn't show that the Big Bang created matter and space breaking the curvature of the so-called singularity. Seemingly, matter came closer to each other on gravitational forces that acted in the flat universe that already existed. So the Big Bang was likely a Big Bounce. And there was no need for Cosmic Inflation to expand matter and energy faster than light. The Maha-Kalpa is the cyclic period that restarts the universe. Thank you.
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 expand. c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually vary. d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. 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 expand and time can 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 vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can 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 vary in actual reality?
A. Numbers don't exist. They are conceptual B. Space is empty space which things can occupy. We don't yet understand how or why it expands but that doesnt disprove anything we do know C. Time is space, that's literally why it's called the spacetime continuum D. Gravity is the interaction that mass has on the gravitational quantum field also known as space E. The speed of light is always a constant. You need to learn more about special relativity. Light can never slow down, things may cause it to seem like it's slowed or even increased from our perspective but for from the photons perspective it always reaches its destination instantly. Even if it seems to us that the light has traveled for thousands of years Tldr: you're an ignorant simpleton who's trying to dispute stuff you don't understand
short answer: as it is currently constituted, YES individuals like Dr. Tyson always gloss over the 'galaxy' sized holes in the theory as "not really important" or "of minor consequence" and then tout how a minor change in just one universal constant unravels the whole thing... there ARE NO unimportant details the rub is; they have built their careers on this idea despite the 'known' issues and they now do what anyone how is having long held beliefs does they return fire most often using logical fallacies, i have found that Dr. Tyson is particularly affluent in this regard... ive watched many of his videos and they all go something like this: uses logical fallacy to dismiss w/o ever addressing valid 'holes' in the theory (the most common he uses are 'appeal to authority', and 'straw manning'), then start into flowery storytelling of how the theory works while no one has come up with "something better" a google search will render many scientists who actual are willing to point out issues with the Big Bang Theory and anyone who arbitrarily choses to ignore these issue has left the path of the Scientific Method.
There are 2 aspects to science; observations and models extrapolated from those observations. Apparently, dark energy/matter constitutes over 90% of the universe therefore any model we extrapolate about what the universe is and how it works is based on the observation of less than 10% of it. That's like extrapolating an elephant, with no previous knowledge of elephants from an elephant's toenail.......from the inside. What are the chances of it being right?
We will never know if the big bang is were life started on earth, it started somewhere, and we keep debunking human theories with or enforcing said theories with technology. This is the human conundrum
When that singularity exploded, wouldn't all of its component parts become quantum entangled? ...If the universe was ever a singularity - could it still be on some level?
It's odd when you hear, "We aren't realy sure about the mass and we aren't really sure about the expansion." You get the feeling that poor old gravity is in the hot seat again...
Neil is just fascinating to listen to
I feel like this is just some guy splicing Neil audio clips into shifty clickbait, no matter how otherwise educational it may nevertheless be.
With his biased ideas ? Dudes a clown and has been called out many times. No real scientist think he’s credible. He’s just on tv and youtube
Is he? I just come here to look at him 😁
So disappointing😭
He is just good at flip flopping.
In the movie The Fugitive a cop is taking questions from a skeptical media about whether Harrision Ford really killed his wife. The cop replied "Look, he was convicted in a court of law, he's guilty". We know that he was innocent. Every time I hear NDT I think of this cop.
This video is excellent... appropriate balance of procedural scientific revelation, popular misunderstanding, and relevance in human history... loved it.
I like how Tyson gave the mental imagery for myself to this when saying, "drawing bigger circles around the applicability of Newton's laws".
Best channel for science
@@MJ1 how?
@@johnluisdelima5924 I think he is referring to this channel communicating science to the lay person extremely well. Which is accurate.
This is one of the best videos I've seen describing our origins from a scientific view. Not a "We know, we know", but this is what our observations draws us to.
Yes, if one can ignore the JWT deep field images of the garden variety spiral galaxies with stars over a billion years old exist a mere 180 light years away from a supposed Big Bang.
Most scientists I hear say this all the time. They say things like our current knowledge tells us or as far as we know ....
This is what the oil companies have used against climate scientists to convince the gullible that because they have modified their predictions as new research brings new information there is no global warming.
@David Mudry Most fascinating rebuttal for anything this man says th-cam.com/video/H2sWzApuuvc/w-d-xo.html
Edwin Hubble discovered the galaxies expanding, not the universe. Nobody is told this anymore but Hubble and many of his peers never accepted Georges Lamaîtres interpretation of what Hubble discovered. They thought it was too religious. Why wouldn't they think that? The creator of the theory was a priest and a universe cannot have time and then have it. That is a creationist theory and there is no place in science for it. That's why nothing ever makes sense.
kerrym9254. You've hit the nail on the head. The Big Bang "theory" (and people get hung up on the word theory, also as in the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Relativity; another way to look at it is the Big Bang Model) has arrived at this position PRECISELY BECAUSE of observations and analysis OF those observations.
Our strength is that we work towards the truth together.
What if there are multiple universes in various stages of expansion or contraction.
If it cannot be tested it is unknowable
*When scientists don't understand something they give it a cool name.*
A priest scientist gave that name, then one atheist scientist laughed about it lok
I get flat earth vibes here,.. talking for 10mins, saying profound sounding stuff, but never actually answering the question asked
The question "Is The Big Bang Theory Wrong?" was never addressed directly. I suspect that this video was inspired by some of the observations of the James Web telescope, which has been making quite a number of observations that go against some of the Big Bang predictions of the early universe.
None of the observations “go against” the predictions made by the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang happened we can see it. What has been observed is galaxies forming sooner than inflationary cosmology expected. It’s not like the Big Bang just disappeared because the earliest galaxies formed 100,000 years prior to what was previously calculated. It just means that we were not aware that galaxies could form so soon after the universe became opaque. This is good because it helps us gain a better understanding of the mechanisms by which the Big Bang occurred.
@@bernieflanders8822 we don't have a theory of time, let that sink in.
@Greg LeJacques whether that is true or not. There is evidence that a Big Bang occurred within whatever realm of reality you choose to imply. It happened and we can see it. Why would you need to push something that is an observable part of reality. It’s like saying that certain people are pushing that during daylight hours the sky is blue.
@Greg LeJacques plus I absolutely agree that there is no sign of a magic sky daddy creator. The universe is here and nobody knows why, it just is. It’s a fundamental trait for human beings to need to understand things. The whole creator story is just an example of the conclusions people used to come up with when lacking the scientific method.
@@bernieflanders8822 you can't see shit
I love how NdGT gets so jazzed up when he's talking -- such powerful conviction of expression.
That's what clowns do....
❤ TO GOD BE THE GLORY
The more I hear from different physicists, the more I come to think that we are actually living in a black hole. The singularity would have been the initiation of that black hole. The constant expansion through dark matter, the increasing speed at which that expansion is happening and so on. And as we know through Hawking, black holes do radiate. If our species were ever to take advantage of that, there is a distinct possibility that we could actually leave our universe and look at it from the outside. Of course there's lots of assumptions being made here. But they seem to be the ones that make the most sense.
I just want to know what's at the end 😢
There is no end. Infinite. You are not living life only you are life.
You do not have a life only you are life.
The Creator and you are one or oneness.
Impossible literally impossible to think otherwise.
@@toddracicot706 thanks for your reply. Why do you say there is a creator? What proof do you have of one?
@@toddracicot706 Not impossible though, obviously!
Well said. So well said, in fact, that I understood it. Thank you. One question though... Where did the singularity come from?
Sooo if the universe is expanding we could never find life on another planet because the planets would be moving away at a speed we couldn’t overcome and we’d never reach that planet?
The ether and the light analogy was the one that took me the furthest. Now I have to go find out what makes sound not travel-able through space. Ugh!
Most of the sound that we hear is a wave of air, i.e., the compression and rarefaction of the air. If you take away air, you take away sound. It is like draining a pool. With no water, you cannot make waves.
Space is just not a dense enough medium for sound to travel thru.
What of ether and light
With NO air molecules, there is NO air pressure to affect the ear membrane ...
" It's not good enough to be right you have to be effective " Neil deGrasse Tyson
Great video, I love Neil's explanation on how science works ❤
it is an explanation of how bad science or theology works. speaking from lack of evidence as law is the problem. the very concept of science law existing beyond reality or evidence, then you have conjecture. sometimes we are wrong. just because we hold to a theory, does not make it true. and the stupidity of religious science is that new concepts aren't allowed because they dont fit the model. the big bang was fact in the 1950s before we found out the universe was so much bigger and older. cmb fact proves big bang then we find there are galaxies in the 'background', really old galaxies are too far back in time, not everything is spreading out, we dont know how big the universe is, the physics must have been different in the singularity.....
how about, the model doesnt work lets stop beating this dead horse and rethink.
@David Mudry i find gravity tends to work as a theory pulling objects toward each other like magnets and buildings stay up because the stuff below it resists further movement toward the earth. but a net zero framework is there because they arent floating or sinking. but these are very simplistic versions. my issues are when things like the CMB are believed to be a fixed amount, but different measurements have resulted in vastly different numbers. add to that the newish knowledge that where they were looking actually had sources of energy in the form of galaxies etc, This suggests to me that the CMB is clearly BS. if it were not BS the number would be a constant not an average, and it would be the same when you measure it again. or constant.
@David Mudry so says the new suggestion. i say if i drop an apple it heads for the ground. i would argue that we are not the center of our own relative universe that is 'new age theology' that is very old.
but drop a hammer with your foot under it and tell me if your foot hurts. the speed of light is fixed is BS disproven by different mediums it goes through. but you go ahead and accept gravity doesnt exist just warped space time. i think rather things like red shift shows both that gravity can change the speed of light, and therefore light speed is not fixed, but stuff is still affected by what we call gravity.
@David Mudry no. in a plane or rocket the pull toward the large object still exists. the difference between what you feel has changed, but just because it doesn't feel like you are falling and accelerating towards the earth doesn't mean its not happening. i dont feel us speeding round the sun, but i still am. my frame of reference only affects my perception, not reality itself. that was/ is ancient mysticism. the old if a tree falls in a forest with no one around to hear, does it make a sound. yes. physics does not require us to understand it first. we are not the coyote chasing the road runner off a cliff. we arent so important that our perception / frame of reference changes reality.
@David Mudry i did. disagreement is different to not watching.
I bet it’s wrong. People are wrong about most everything else and I doubt if we hit the bullseye when it comes to how the universe began.
Science Saturday! (Though per my own bias, science is no less interesting on Monday or any other day, and sometimes wakes my sleepy mind at the most fascinating times.) Enjoyed this video. Thank you!
Yes, it is an oversimplification.
One of the many reasons why I love to listen to Tyson, is that he is one of very few "elite" scientists who is extremely careful about using the word "fact", and calls theories exactly that.
Scientific theory is fact.
General theory of relativity is fact, Einstein showed how it could be proven and everyone tried to disprove it, he was spot on and now we use it every single day in our normal lives.
Except that’s just not what is being meant with theory. Theory can be factually right or wrong and are about mechanisms to describe phenomena. Hence hypotheses are used backed up with theory to determine via experimental procedure what’s fact and fiction.
For some reason, I thought this was about the TV show 😆
You must have stars in your eyes.
In another 500 years, general public might find out what people in "old ages" thought of the Universe and how it was born. And they will laugh their butts off on our stupidity and ignorance. 😂😂😂😂
A very much possibility.
❤ ALL THE CREATION OF GOD IS PERFECT THAT NO ONE CAN DO.
It's Just theory take from ancient text.
It's not fit with the theory of multi dimensional and multi universe.
I once asked a theist if I could present him with absolute proof that there was no God, would he change his mind, and he said he would not. Then, taking the bait, he asked me if he presented me with absolute proof that there was a God, would I change my mind? "Of course I would" I proclaimed. "I'm not an idiot!" It's true that I got the idea from somewhere, but I really did have this conversation. (The look on his face was priceless.)
I used to have 2 church guys that would come visit me to debate. I grew up with the bible but dont agree with it overall. It was always good fun debating with them. The one question that really broke their brains was "Which testiment describes god?" Taking into account all of the books not just those of the bible, even the book of Judas, which god is real?"
@@dralord1307 Even just from the books included in the standard Bible, God comes across as having an alarming combination of personality disorders. Nothing against Christians, but I find it difficult to have faith in something that changes their mind so often.
@@vanyadolly Yup lots of people only read the parts they want. Most ppl I have talked with completely discount the old testement. Not many notice the vast difference in tone about the crucifixion between the books either.
@@vanyadolly
Science changes regularly when new evidence emerges.
Do you therefore have difficulty having faith in science?
I think there is nothing wrong with the Big Bang Theory. Sheldon, Leonard and Penny are good people.😉😁
Lmao! 🤣🤣
I believe space time will contract at some point in time and black holes will reach the center of the universe at the same time faster then speed of light. I believe that big bang is a conflict between energies in a short period of time.
Einstein’s equation E=mC² and the Big Bang premise of the video necessarily infers that the force carrying particle of the Big Bang, (BB), had to evolve into matter as it cooled because there was nothing else but energy particles to combine into the structure of matter. The narrator hints that light was emitted from the BB 13.8 billion years ago and my choice for the BB force carrier is Planck length photons which are composed of 4 brane and 3 brane strings, (with the 3 brane being the source of entanglement), interlaced on the surface of a prolate spheroid that has protruding positive and negative poles. These poles are functional worm drive gears that allow these extremely powerful photons to tightly daisy chain via charge coupling into chiral loops that evolve to form matter. The initial matter structure is the formation of a one to three aspect ratio torus, and the tori can break open to form straight shafts approximately 10-20 Planck’s lengths in diameter. These shafts and tori combine to form a gravitational working fluid, (aka quantum gravity), as an ambipolar solenoid, (aka gluon), that have counter-rotating shafts, which amplify any ambient electromagnetic fields they encounter to produce a much more powerful local field. This photon to gluon evolution of energy to matter continues to this day inside each spherical particle of matter and the gluons that are released from the electrons and atomic nuclei interact with other particles as quantum gravity. The gluons can then daisy chain via charge coupling to form fluids and even fuse with activation energy to form ring shapes that combine to form the charged fields constituting the shells of leptons and baryons by spinning in a gyroscopic configuration. The gluons can condense in galactic EMF via Feshbach resonance to form fluid droplets, (aka dark matter), that are dispersed by cosmic rays back upon the galaxy to generate the Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation to manifest the excessive rotational rate of galaxies. The gluons generate gravitational thrust by penetrating the spherical leptons and baryon and accelerating as a super-fluid waveform in their sub-wavelength cavities to generate vectored thrust as exhaust from the South pole of the particle that polar orients toward the dominant gluon flux. The exhaust is vectored by the external quantum fluid formed by gluons on the surface that were at an acute angle or were too slow to penetrate into the spherical particle. This surface fluid also forms a dual membrane slipstream at the equator where the fluid from both hemispheres collide to form a dual membrane slipstream resembling the plasma in a disc MHD generator field. That field interacts with the gluon flux to stifle acceleration as space-time viscosity by absorbing the momentum of the flux thus generating an opposing thrust to gravity in a manner similar a sea anchor opposing the thrust of a ship’s propeller. This slowing of the gluon flux via the viscosity mechanism eventually renders the flux to slow to penetrate the spherical particles and instead enhances the viscosity field to manifest dark energy as a “sea anchor” where the gluon flux crossing megaparsecs is repulsive but the fast local gravity still attracts its target. This is why the galaxies in high Z super-clusters act like windsocks in the laminar flow of the slow gluons, with all galactic disks in the same plane and with their long axes all parallel to the direction of red shift propagation. Indeed, the Hubble constant is just a measure of the average percentage of gluon slowed to a repulsive velocity over a megaparsec. Et voila, the Big Bang photonic energy conversion to matter that evolves into an expanding universe.
One word
Nucleosynthesis
@@drsatan7554 well isn't that special? The rotor rings are rapidly synthesized in succession, as each absorbs activation energy, thereby allowing the larger and weaker rings to survive in the lowering temp and pressure.
@@tomlakosh1833 what in the firetruck are you talking about and how is it relevant to how matter first formed by nucleosynthesis?
Are you some sort of simpleton who spews out big meaningless words trying to sound smart?
@@tomlakosh1833 more irrelevant nonsense. Let's see you explain how what you said was relevant to what I said
@@tomlakosh1833 no I never used hyperbole and I want you to explain how what you're talking about is relevant to what I said
"Cloud &rain model"is more making sense model of the real structure of the Universe than "Big Bang model"
It can't be wrong! They made an entire TV series about it! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
🤣😆 and school books... science projects... documentaries. Like what are we suppose to do with all these decades of lies?
The singularity that expands into our universe demonstrates that at least one time a black hole can expand and disassociate into something that is not gravitationally bound. Except for mass and rotation are all singularities equal?
Tyson's explaination was great. It gave me a nice image of the scientific method
Here is my question I would like to pose. If the Milky Way is part of the universe, and of course it is, then how can the "universe" move away from the Milky Way, which Earth is a part of. This is probably a silly question, but I have never heard this concept explained. Wouldn't the Milky Way be expanding, or moving at the same speed as the rest of the universe?
There's a bunch of empty space between us. Gravity is the weakest fundamental force but it has *potentially* infinite range
If two galaxies aren't moving closer because of each other's Gravity then that's because they aren't within each other's gravitational fields
There are no solid bars connecting the celestial bodies. They is empty space between them
"Small, hot, dense..."
Yep, sounds like 90% of the girls I've dated...
Who cares
Intellectuals. You wouldn’t understand
@@WIGGlNS an interesting statement from someone who reads comics and lives in their mom's basement
@@karabecks1 good one
@@WIGGlNS sorry was mean, it's just that these stories pop up constantly without adding anything new to current body of knowledge
Lots of people.
Good video, you got my sub.
No it’s not wrong. There are a lot of people who want the whole of scientific understanding to be wrong because they think that would mean that magic is real and they are special tho😂
there is so much that science does not understand and only have theory's about. you cant say 100% one way or another
@@david111davies yes there is a lot that science doesn’t understand yet……. Nobody would deny that. Also a scientific theory is not a theory in the general term. They are not just some guys cool idea. A scientific theory must be able to make accurate predictions based on the mathematic that make up that theory. They must be testable and pass every test put forth to them. For example Einsteins general theory of relativity made predictions regarding large bodies of mass bending starlight which it not only does, but does so to the exact amount that the mathematics of the theory predict. It also predicted that time tick differently for objects that are closer to bodies of mass and based on the velocity of an object relative to another which have also been tested and proven to be the case also to the exact amount that the theory predicts. Also relativity predicted that gravitational waves would be caused by massive bodies of mass colliding and these were detected also to the exact amplitudes that the theory predicts. Gravitational lensing was also predicted by relativity which again have been found to be a thing plus objects are lends to the exact amount that the theory predicted. I could go on, but I’m sure I’ve made my point here. Remember… a scientific theory MUST MAKE TESTABLE PREDICTIONS. THEY ARE NOT JUST A BUNCH OF IDEAS DREAMT UP TO EXPLAIN THINGS WE CANT UNDERSTAND. A good example of a theory in the colloquial term would be something like the bible. The bible is a great example of a load of ideas dreamt up by people in an attempt to explain nature without any evidence nor testable predictions being put forth.
Mic 🎤 drop
"It's perfectly normal in this day and age that in the vacuum of space there would be a build up of differentials for a dead horse being beaten around the track for yet still another lap. Although the total invariant mass of the system must be conserved when transformed into lighter nuclei accompanied by spicy kimchi-flavored ramen. The spice must flow. A chain reaction of cyberpunk sunflowers can occur although the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain. Invisible aluminum is a real thing that defines it pretty well. Coincidence? Maybe so, but it’s happening time and time again to whirlpools of iguanas. Round and round they go directed by radio communication exchanges, creating unusual geometric patterns. It's all part of the thrill of champagne wishes and caviar dreams. The science and math behind liquid nitrogen proves over and over that catalytic converters just need a good rinse and quasiparticles of the fractional quantum Hall effect. Fermionic waves are always an answer to recent questions and vastly increase scientific transparency about freshly mowed grass. I mean, if you don’t have that, what do you have, really? The more you know, the less you don't know."
---Albert Einstein
@@satanofficial3902 I applaud 👏 you sir. Slowly and with a look of sheer admiration on my face.
@m_train1 what is?
The stock footage is distractingly bad.
YES IT IS WRONG¡¡¡¡
Prove it!
Collect your nobel prize on the way to.
@James Wright lol Nobel prize
I know it’s wrong because I’m positive we can’t think beyond limiting everything, especially so concerning the universe, and considering we’ve just started, as galactic time goes, it’s just fun learning at this point.
It's not wrong.....
We don't fully understand it....
Very different.
If someone was murdered, we know they are dead but we then investigate how it happened and why.
We know the big bang happened, we can see the aftermath. We are still just investigating how, why, etc.
It’s not complicated read the first sentence in the Bible.
Yeah just turn your brain off and uncritically accept whatever an old mythology book says.
❤ AMAZING CREATION OF OUR GOD THE FATHER IN HEAVEN. AMEN
Almighty God made it !
your source please
Which one and any evidence?
How do you figure?
A theory nor even a hypothesis should not be taken as wrong or right until every piece of the proverbial "puzzle" that can be taken into reasonable consideration fits the overall picture as the answer to the subject in question .
Just how solid a given conclusion may appear to be tends to depend on any number of factors and may well be subject to further revision as warranted.
I used to teach STEM.
I would never say, "This theory is wrong," or "This theory is right." I would say, "The evidence does not support this theory," or "The evidence does support this theory."
I also taught in a Catholic school. I frequently reminded my students that the Catholic Church does not oppose science. In fact, they are great proponents. After all, the BBT was proposed by a Catholic priest!
When you call it the "beginning" like so many people do, you are already starting out on the wrong foot. It is not the beginning, nor does it claim to be. It is what happened right before espansion. That's it.
Object, gravity, zero Gravity is about everything in space
Is the English narrator the same guy that does the show (How it’s Made)?
I feel like I'm back in 1st grade getting tought by Mr.Tyson 😅
Taught vs tought, 1st grade LOL
@@vashon100 yeah maybe I'm just first grade material lmao 🤣 anyhow, is just the way Tyson explains his statements with so much clarity as like when your being taught Reading or English for the fist time and as you can see I struggled a bit there 😅
If the expansion is speeding up then the universe gets slower and slower until it stops if you reverse time.
Expect space experiences vacuum energy which causes space its self to constantly expand. So it doesnt slow, instead it speeds up as more space is created.
The original Big Bang Theory [BBT] was that the Universe began as a singularity which exploded outward, an Expanding Universe.
Later on, the BBT was revised such that the rate of the expansion of the Universe was now thought to be accelerating ever since it began. As far as I've been able to ascertain, proponents of the BBT have yet to explain how this expansion acceleration can happen, and it's only given a 'name' -- called 'Dark Energy'. I imagine it as an inside-out view compared to how one might describe a set of motionless bits of matter materializing within the Earth's gravity well and beginning to fall towards the Earth's center from an initial zero velocity at an ever-accelerating velocity, but then the rate of acceleration somehow increases -- almost as if each bit of matter is also being electromagnetically attracted to the Earth too, and not just being gravitationally drawn to the Earth's mass. Now, imagine the 'sphere' of the Universe's 'edge' drawing galaxies (and everything else) OUTWARD from positions relatively at a 'center' of the Universe, that 'edge' having so much mass as to exert a tug on matter such that each galaxy 'falls' (accelerates) towards the nearest part of the 'edge' -- and, perhaps, that 'edge' is also exerting electromagnetic forces on those outwardly 'falling' galaxies, increasing their rates of acceleration beyond what gravity alone can muster.
All of this is based on the assumption that the observed red-shifting of light from distant galaxies is due to the Universe expanding -- the so-called Cosmological Red-shift. The higher the red-shift a particular galaxy may have, the further away from our observation point it is, and the longer it has been moving.
But there's a problem with this assumption about the Cosmological Red-shift, and its name is NGC 7603. This is a Seyfert galaxy located in the constellation Pisces, and it is accompanied by a companion galaxy called PGC 71041 (as well as two quasars positioned along a 'bridge' of material connecting the two galaxies, that 'bridge' being an extension of one of NGC 7603's spiral arms. All four objects appear to be interconnected, associated with each other. But here's the kicker: they each have different recessional velocities, based on their observed red-shifts. These red-shift recessional velocities (in kilometers per second) are 8700 [NGC 7603], 117,000 [the QSR nearer to NGC 7603], 72,000 [the QSO nearer to PGC 71041], and 17,000 [PGC 71041]. By my calculations -- based on a Hubble Constant of about 68.88230648 -- these objects are at distances (in Megaparsecs) from our Milky Way Galaxy of 126.3 [NGC 7603], 1698.55 [the QSR nearer to 7603], 1045.26 [the other QSR], and 246.8 [PGC 71041].
These four objects should all be the SAME distance from us, seeing as how they are physically linked together -- but their recessional velocities are NOT the same. Here we have evidence that the expansion of the Universe is ALLEGED to be happening based on an ASSUMPTION that the Cosmological Red-shift is due to universal expansion, a Doppler shifting of light analogous to the lowering pitch of a receding train whistle.
Until proponents of the BBT can come up with a rational reason as to why these 4 objects -- two galaxies and two quasars, all inter-connected -- have different red-shifts and, hence, different recessional velocities, I reserve the right to question the assumptions they have regarding the cause of the red-shifting of light from distant galaxies. It seems to me that there is some other cause which -- at least partly -- leads to the red-shifting of distant light-sources, a cause which has nothing to do with the relative apparent motions of galaxies in a supposedly expanding universe. NGC 7603 and its companions don't fit in, and seemingly defy the tenets of the BBT.
Perhaps the JWST can take better images of these objects. Clearly, more information about them is needed in order for scientists to correctly ascertain the validity of the current 'consensus' view of cosmology promulgated by BBT proponents.
Yes more information is needed.
Did you have a point?
Science does not claim Divine knowledge.
To me the math or expressions, or equations, do not break down at T=0. Time is a mass-energy ratio, and what T=0 is telling you is that energy is at a zero or equilibrium "pure" state, but the structure of the supposed singularity will shift and restart the whole process all over again; i.e. giving rise to another big bang.
As for Aether, well, there's a retired physicist in the Philippines who argues for a quantum field "Aether" that acts as a pressure field. It explains so called dark matter and energy both, and seems to offer new insights. As to whether it holds up to experiment I do not know, but it is a fresh approach to an old conundrum.
It started at point. In all directions adding one at a time. Until now where one is at the same time in different places.
Possibly the most ironic example- the plane that dropped an atom bomb on Hiroshima was designed using Newton's laws.
Why is it assumed the universe expands as a single unit, or that red shift is caused by expansion and not some other phenomena?
If "bubbles" of space, i.e. discreet areas if space expand individually, the observed phenomena would be as we see it.
Also, we know lensing is a thing, and we know chromatic aberration is a thing, so that would result in red shift also.
No physicist has addressed or explained this.
One problem is JWT is finding new galaxies at the edge of the observable universe that break the models. They seem far more orderly than expected. So that is an issue.
Yea, It’s an issue but I’m sure we will know the truth soon. Maybe the big bang was in some ways different than what we know it.
Where is piont of this begining called big Bang, and which Direction it's moving, expanding?
My GCSE is no help…my brain hurts.
When I was a child, I was told there is a God that created the entire universe and the earth in a week, just by letting it happen. Later, I was taught that the entire universe was locked in something the size of a pea. One day that pea exploded for some unknown reason and this explosion lasted until the present day, creating everything we know. Now, when I tell my grandchildren, I honestly find both theories equally bizarre.
It is a repeating pulse. Explosion, extension, contraction, explosion, extraction, contraction and so on.
When did it start? It is not important to know.
Before the big bang, came the long movie and the expensive dinner
Nice to see Wasa in a video about the universe 👍🏻
“How did the Universe begin” is not the correct first question? “Did the Universe begin” is. And if the answer given is yes, an explanation has to follow.
"This is not how it works" sounds awfully lot like an opinion. You can verify something many, many times and still disqualify it on a whim. Example: Euclidean parallel postulate as an axiom. It occurs to me that the word "theory" is used way to often to describe hypothesis. Euclidean Geometry is a theory albeit biased to a particular set of axioms. Big Bang is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.
The only problem I have as a scientist and atheist is explaining to believers what was before the big bang and where the big bang came from and what started it. For them this is than the point where they say: So than this was God.
And I have problems replying on them
nope it needs a bit of a clarification and update tho.
Big Bang never made sense. Even as a kid, I rejected it. It’s a story about chaos, but what we observe is perfect order.
I don't like thinking about this. It scares me for some reason. Is anyone else like that?
Ether is either spacetime or virtual particles
Well, part of the problem is that 'Big Bang' is a terrible name. At best, it was a super tiny event, and there was no 'bang' because there was no air in space. Also, the theory doesn’t adequately explain certain aspects. Why 'Big'? How did the 'Bang' happen? It's like naming a theory 'apple theorem' and then discussing orange juice. Moreover, what kind of theory requires adding 95% of unknown substances to make it work? That's a 20-fold error. It's akin to a child claiming to have two PHDs after the first year of school (the additional 19 being 'dark education'). So, rightfully, people question if the theory's name is wrong, what else could be? If you need to add (fake it to make it ) 95% material to fit observations, it's not science; it's prophecy.This is precisely why a Priest read the Bible and formulated the Big Bang theory. Just like other observations, such as everything appearing to orbit around us, leading to the belief that we are at the center of the universe. It's astonishing that people still refer to observations as facts, much like those who claim the Earth is flat, because, based on limited observations, the horizon appears flat. The Big Bang theorists are, at best, like divorce scientists who conclude the main reason for divorce is marriage based on observations alone. Without mathematics, it's not science; it's philosophical speculation. Mathematics clearly shows that 5 does not equal 100, and it's time to abandon such religious-like beliefs and seek better theories.
Anything *could* be wrong.
Apart from things that are just right, that's why we have things called facts.
Anything could be right.
Yup, you're absolutely, indisputable right there.... hmm, wait a minute 🤔😁
@@jameswright... I think the point is that some facts are proven wrong in science when new discoveries are made. Then it's not a (true) fact anymore. Of course we must work on the facts we know at any given time, but science is very much about always questioning and test what we know.
@@bennylloyd-willner9667
Science is done by us mere apes so open to errors, luckily it has methods to help avoid this with peer review etc and rarely says fact, it does however have laws that are fact within it.
It is the best we have for answering questions, the answers it has work to improve and extend our lifes as part of the evidence of fact.
But science has no say in fact, thing's are the way they are in the universe as fact regardedless of what we know about them, science just helps explain find out about those facts and understand them.
If we never looked at the shape of earth and still thought it was flat with no evidence otherwise and had no science we'd still be wrong.
Facts are facts irrelevant of what anyone thinks or science may say or know about them, if something is proven wrong it was never fact in the first place.
But science works!
Imagine if someone could engineer and build a telescope with MRI capabilities. Then y’all would know for sure.
At what level of organisation doesit stop to expand
❤ THANKS BE TO GOD WHO CREATED HEAVEN AND EARTH. AMEN
Space/time is the medium that carries the light.
Now I am really confused....
I seriously disagree with the "where energy and matter were a primordial soup" comment, certainly when they say that if you want to convert energy into matter you have to create an equal amount of antimatter, there was no matter at the big bang, it still had to be converted into matter and antimatter, and 1 out of 1000000001 virtual matter/antimatter particles didn't annihilate and became matter. Or is there suddenly no more matter vs antimatter crisis? I even may have an issue with the HOT dense state, I don't think it was hot, I think it was extremely cold and at a very low entropy. If there were no forces yet back then, then there is no heat energy, no kinetic energy, no radiation, no strong force, no gravity, no weak force, no electromagnetism, and you need all of them to have a HOT dense state, so he's assuming that GUT theory is correct, and it hasn't been proven yet and probably won't be proven.
I think we're having some linguistic problems. you keep wanting to say light is a wave but it's not propagating through any medium. A wave, however, is just that. The propagation of energy through a medium, so, whatever light is, it's NOT a wave. I think light being a particle works just fine. and light doesn't have to be a wave because it, somehow, must have a frequency. A machine gun fires bullets at a certain frequency. That doesn't mean the bullets are now a wave. The emission of light could be compared to a rapid fire shotgun, which would fire a bunch of tiny beads at once, and then again and again, over and over, in rapid succession. In this model, every photon is exactly the same. There are no red or green or x-ray or microwave photons. How they interact with matter depends on how many photos per unit of time are being absorbed or defected or even re-emitted by the atoms the photons are striking. photons absorbed by the electrons of an atom can change the electrons orbit around its nucleus which would change how it interacts with the atoms around it. this could cause the molecule the atom is apart of to change in some way, change the configuration of its atoms, ejecting some or absorbing others from nearby. The absorbed photons could be re-emitted at a different rate than they were absorbed, causing them to have a different "frequency" or color and then interact differently with other atoms.
WOW! YOU should go and teach the physicists then. You are SO MUCH smarter than them. Go and study the dual nature of light. Both particle AND wave. And when you do that, you will begin to understand just a LITTLE BIT of quantum mechanics. And it DOES NOT have to be within a medium to propagate. That was the Michelson-Morley investigation.
Light being absorbed by atoms causes the electrons of the atom to jump up (a "quantum leap") to higher energy levels. The light must be of a VERY SPECIFIC frequency or energy. When the electrons LOSE that energy, they emit light at a VERY SPECIFIC frequency or energy. Standard high school physics will introduce you to this concept and first year University Physics will expand on it. You study this by looking at the line spectra of specific elements and compounds. LOOK it up! Each element has its own characteristic line spectrum. Hydrogen - take a look at those!
And please understand that by "light", it is not meant to be VISIBLE light only! These spectra are in areas of the EMR that are not visible too.
It is clear that you have some "ideas". But these ideas have been thorough tested many many MANY times.
Photons are real. They are particles. MASS less particles. They also move as WAVES!
Knowing this it is easy to explain why window glass is transparent to visible light and NOT to ultraviolet. You can't get suntanned/burned through window glass.
Thanks for your interest, but please go and read the actual KNOWN physics.
How do you explain constructive and destructive interference of light waves?
Whether the big bang is correct or not, we can all agree... Neil Degrasse Tyson has never thought he was wrong
There's a lot of people like that.
Seldom right but never in doubt.
I am so glad that Neil deGrasse explains this all.
Pity that he can not explain his part in this equation, but hey man!
He is a conscious being.
He can't even define what a woman is.
JWST just disproved everything he is saying. oops. #nobigbang
Job 38:4-6 Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.
[5]Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?
[6]To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone.. '
Where does the water in the ice in comets come from ?
I think it goes like this.
At first there was the Big Bang(Planck Era begins)
A few seconds (?) later there were quarks and electrons (end of Planck Era)
Then the quarks formed protons.
Then the protons and electrons formed hydrogen atoms, H ( H =1p+1e).
Then hydrogen clouds were formed.
Then gravity pulled these clouds together and they formed protostars.
Then gravity compresed the protostars, nuclear reactions begun and the stars were formed.
Inside the stars the nuclear reactions created heavier atoms/elements (like oxygen, O) .
Then some stars explode and the heavy elements were spread into the universe.
Then some elements/atoms combined and created molecules (like the water molecule, H-O-H).
Then gravity pulled these molecules together and matter was created (like water).
Then gravity pulled matter together and planets, moons, asteroids (water+other matter) were formed.
@@djeff7141 nah;that aint it. Ha ! Actually I found out later that carbon monoxide mixes with the "O" and the "H" and zingo bingo,we get H2O and water is formed. Who knew that gas was good for sumthin ? 'Preciate the effort though.
If you throw ether out the window your just gunna drag the quantum mechanics (field) back in to replace it, so your still building on the same idea
The flat universe is likely a box. A flat universe doesn't support the concept of Cosmic Inflation from a curved singularity. CMB Radiation showed that the universe was not a curved universe. So the Big Bang was not like a breaking of a curved geometry of spacetime. Therefore, the CMB radiation doesn't show that the Big Bang created matter and space breaking the curvature of the so-called singularity. Seemingly, matter came closer to each other on gravitational forces that acted in the flat universe that already existed. So the Big Bang was likely a Big Bounce. And there was no need for Cosmic Inflation to expand matter and energy faster than light. The Maha-Kalpa is the cyclic period that restarts the universe. Thank you.
That was so grasping.. got it..👉👉💪
"The Lambda-CDM model has no obligation to follow laws of physics and that is why it has no obligation to make sense to you"
Mike Pollock
Isn’t that nearly or similar to religious statement.
Clickbait title, really.
is there any entanglement between 2 thing in this universe where 1 is in a black hole ?
Why is all matter in the universe travelling in different directions if there was a big bang?
Is it a matter of being wrong or is it about being incomplete?
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 expand.
c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually vary.
d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do.
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 expand and time can 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 vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can 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 vary in actual reality?
A. Numbers don't exist. They are conceptual
B. Space is empty space which things can occupy. We don't yet understand how or why it expands but that doesnt disprove anything we do know
C. Time is space, that's literally why it's called the spacetime continuum
D. Gravity is the interaction that mass has on the gravitational quantum field also known as space
E. The speed of light is always a constant. You need to learn more about special relativity. Light can never slow down, things may cause it to seem like it's slowed or even increased from our perspective but for from the photons perspective it always reaches its destination instantly. Even if it seems to us that the light has traveled for thousands of years
Tldr: you're an ignorant simpleton who's trying to dispute stuff you don't understand
What happens when we see this information? We see the light coming from where it originated and then it passes and then what?
If we see the light then the light can't pass us lol
short answer: as it is currently constituted, YES
individuals like Dr. Tyson always gloss over the 'galaxy' sized holes in the theory as "not really important" or "of minor consequence" and then tout how a minor change in just one universal constant unravels the whole thing... there ARE NO unimportant details
the rub is; they have built their careers on this idea despite the 'known' issues and they now do what anyone how is having long held beliefs does they return fire most often using logical fallacies, i have found that Dr. Tyson is particularly affluent in this regard... ive watched many of his videos and they all go something like this:
uses logical fallacy to dismiss w/o ever addressing valid 'holes' in the theory (the most common he uses are 'appeal to authority', and 'straw manning'), then start into flowery storytelling of how the theory works
while no one has come up with "something better" a google search will render many scientists who actual are willing to point out issues with the Big Bang Theory and anyone who arbitrarily choses to ignore these issue has left the path of the Scientific Method.
There are 2 aspects to science; observations and models extrapolated from those observations.
Apparently, dark energy/matter constitutes over 90% of the universe therefore any model we extrapolate about what the universe is and how it works is based on the observation of less than 10% of it. That's like extrapolating an elephant, with no previous knowledge of elephants from an elephant's toenail.......from the inside.
What are the chances of it being right?
Time doesn't respect 2 legs..
We will never know if the big bang is were life started on earth, it started somewhere, and we keep debunking human theories with or enforcing said theories with technology. This is the human conundrum
Oh boy, you are confused.
When that singularity exploded, wouldn't all of its component parts become quantum entangled? ...If the universe was ever a singularity - could it still be on some level?