ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.ค. 2024
- Dr. Matt Bothwell holds the position of Public Astronomer at the University of Cambridge. He is an expert in the field of astronomy and actively engages in scientific communication. Dr. Bothwell delivers informative discussions and lectures on various aspects of astronomy and frequently appears in the media, including television and radio. When not engaged in outreach activities, Matt works as an observational astronomer, utilizing advanced observing facilities to study the development of galaxies throughout the history of the universe.
![Everything NASA Discovered from James Webb's First Year in Space [4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nbDQEo0uA0Q/mqdefault.jpg)
The expansion is not being propelled outwards. There is a strong gravitational attraction being generated “out there”, pulling the individual bits of the universe towards it. As they approach the attractive source, naturally, the force becomes stronger and the speed increases accordingly. QED. In my humble opinion. I’m a lawyer- trust me😂
In every direction beyond the observable universe are other pockets of the universe significantly bigger that is continually pulling everything we can see in our observable universe towards them due to their combined gravitational potential.
We don't know, becasue, it is beyond our observable bubble and view of the Universe.
First comment. The title of this video sounds like clickbait. Everyone thinks their video is "amazing". After watching, I can attest this lecture (other than the slamming metal doors) is excellent and well worth the time to listen to Dr. Bothwell.
Second is that somebody does win the lottery no matter what the odds are against. There is nothing amazing or unusual about it. If the odds of us being here is something like Dr. Bothwell's number, that being (10 ^ 120) against us being here, and yet here we are, so what? We won the cosmic lottery. But should we self-destruct, and destroy ourselves, well, in a multiverse of infinite other universes, we alone will be listed as the greatest fools who have ever been given the chance to live and understand. And for those who are religious, you have a lot of explaining to do to the big guy.
Astronomy or Cosmology, if we fail to pin the purpose we remain ignorant and incomplete. So, before we can get into the purpose, we need to get the feeling of the transition from non-matter life to life and then get the grip of the consistency with which we are sustained in the universe full of dangers of losing life into extinction. The basic nature of reality is to fulfill the conditions that creates a flower or one's life, both of which are destined to end (extinction), but wait a minute, purpose goes on and evolve from Brownie flower to Brownie Grandiflora (we will need to wait to see it evolve), similarly one man can end its life but humanity goes on evolving with all the dangers threatening our existence, but never terminating humanity. This is the essence of divine design. Humanity is like a flower that blooms on earth, but has its future evolution. Our existence and our evolution is never threatened but guarded with utmost care, overcoming all the pitfalls that we face and pass with a win in lottery, that we have won millions of times if not billion, in a row, over billions of years perhaps rolling into trillions more years. Evolution doesn't let us down.
Huh? What’s that some such about brown flowers and a stink junction?
@@chraffis It is that Brownie Grandiflora isn't the end of the story of evolution, it is about divine design.
Could the math's be wrong? How do you validate your model?
How will the rotational rate of a white dwarf affect the mass limit before collapse?
Is it possible one could not simply siphon off enough mass to exceed a threshold but to also slow in its rotational rate to where it must collapse?
The rotational rate of a white dwarf affects its collapse behavior, nucleosynthesis, and the eventual outcome-whether it becomes a neutron star or contributes to a Type Ia supernova. One of the earliest efforts to explore this connection was by Ian Rox-burgh (Roxburgh 1965), who showed that the maximum mass of a white dwarf could be increased by about 5% if rotating at near critical velocity of over 2000 km S-l.
@@mrhassell if the mass of the white dwarf was increased by 5% or more if it was rotating faster near critical mass, would we still expect the type Ia supernova to produce the same intensity and spectra of light emitted as that of one where the star was not rotating at all?
Would type Ia Supernova’s still remain “standard candles?” Are they not used now as standard candles because they are assumed to be roughly equal mass at the time of supernova? How much error would we expect using their luminosity to estimate distance if they are not all of equal mass? I imagine they might still be the best approximate standard candle we have at greater distances, but far from perfect.
@@rossholst5315 even if a white dwarf were rotating faster near critical mass, we would still expect a Type Ia supernova to produce similar intensity and spectra of light as one without rotation. The underlying physics driving the explosion remains robust, regardless of rotation.
Yes! They are still called “Standard Candles”. The star that explodes is a white dwarf with a fairly standard mass.
As a result, the supernova’s brightness is predictable. Scientists use the difference between an explosion’s observed and predicted brightness to determine its distance from us. This characteristic has led to type 1a supernovae being called “cosmic markers” and “standard candles.”
@@mrhassell can we tell after the supernova occurs, what the rotation rate of the surface was prior to collapse?
It just seems that knowing that rotation rate would be important for knowing the actual mass prior to collapse.
And knowing the mass would be important for predicting the luminosity.
And the luminosity would be important for predicting the distance.
How accurately can we know the mass without knowing the rotation rate of the surface?
@@rossholst5315 as mentioned, it could be rotating at the speed of light. it is irrelevant.
Speaking of design, our universe is a button on a dress.
Yes, the belly button 😊
Hello Dr Bothwell, I want to make this comment, but I don't want it to be looked on as offesive, but the simple fact is, the whole of what you have just described is miscocieved. Please let me explain.
The whole standard model is fundamentally flawed at the level of the atom, an all of the problems stem from this misconception.
I am not a nutcase, I am a 74 year old successful inventor, with Patents granted. I have a background in both mechanical and electrical engineering, and worked for 11 years in a technical Government department as a technical testing engineer, troubleshooting.
It is the misconception that the universe is expanding that has led to many of the problems in cosmology. I contend that the universe is not expanding: It has no age because it has always existed much as it is now: It will exist forever much as it is now: There was no Big Bang or cosmic inflation: The CMBR is not the afterglow of the big bang, but a point where electromagnetic radiation reaches saturation, and Redshift is not due to the expansion of the universe, but is due to the loss of speed and energy of electromagnetic radiation over distance and time it has travelled.
There has just been published an hypothesis called ' The Two Monopole Particle Universe ' by ' Tony Norman Marsh ', which fully explains all of this Logically. If you type in Tony Norman Marsh into Google, details will be shown.
This hypothesis can also explain Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Antimatter, and two forces of gravity, amongst other things.
If you can provide an email address, I can send you a copy of the manuscript. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.
If I had an email address to reply to, I could send you a copy of the hypothesis, but I have found that TH-cam will not allow email addresses to be posted on these comments. It is available on Amazon and Kindle. Typing ' Tony Norman Marsh ' into Google wil bring up details.
Unfortunately, the hypothesis is too long to post in these comments, however, below is a copy of of the Abstracts from both parts of the hypothesis.
Abstract.
Sole Author.
Tony Norman Marsh.
In this hypothesis, I set out to present a radical alternative to the standard model of quantum mechanics and cosmology, based on logic as opposed to mathematics, which could explain the following:
Dark Matter: Dark Energy: Antimatter: cosmic nucleosynthesis: and two forces of Gravity.
A more rational model of the atom, where the relationship between the nucleus and the electron is fully explained:
The speed and ultimate distance that light and all electromagnetic radiation can travel:
An alternative explanation for the ‘Cosmic Microwave Background radiation’ and ‘Redshift’:
An explanation eliminating the ‘Horizon Problem’ without cosmic inflation:
An explanation for an infinite, nonexpanding universe that has always existed, without a ‘Big Bang’:
The cornerstone of my hypothesis is that everything that exists in the universe is composed of just two incredibly small monopole particles, which I contend are the only two true fundamental and finitely small particles that exist in the universe.
One is a negatively charged monopole particle called a ‘Harveytron’.
And the other is a positively charged monopole particle called a ‘Dannytron’. All other particles are composites of these two particles. Abstract.
An hypothesis to challenge the idea of the ‘Big Bang‘, being how our universe began, and the idea that the universe is expanding. It is further proposed an alternative explanation for the ‘Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation’ (CMB), and ‘Redshift’.
It is proposed that light and all electromagnetic radiation may have a limit to how far it can travel through space. It is also proposed that the universe did not emerge from nothing, but is a dynamic system, in which matter is constantly being created and consumed in a cycle over billions of years.
It is proposed that the universe as we observe it has always existed much as it is today, and extends to infinity.
It is further proposed that the so-called ‘ Big Bang ‘ was not some kind of massive explosion, but is a misconception of what is being interpreted as the ‘ Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation ‘. The ‘ CMB ‘ is the only proof offered for the ‘ Big Bang theory ‘, and this can only be held up by an even more preposterous idea of ‘ Cosmic inflation ‘, inflating the universe from a point of singularity to fill the whole of space in a minute fraction of a billionth of a second.
Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.