You should ask Lerner to come on your show and have a real debate on the key points that break the std model, and have a real face to face debate.

@RWin-fp5jn

Ай бұрын

Exactly. But I would like to restrict the discussion to only the issue whether observed redshift is attributable to suggested higher speed of furthest galaxies vs. further distance only. That is the valuable discussion really. Because if redshift says only something about distance, then that by itself says NOTHING about there being a big bang past or not. Just that the current status of the cosmos if governed by gravity alone. Not by dark energy. Our cosmos might be shrinking or yet expanding. We just cant infer from redshift which it would be. It would also negate any red shift or its retro- fitted CMB derived age notion. Which is a good thing, as it would do away with the Hubble tension. But even better: if gravity is the sole factor, than we KNOW the state and likely shape of our universe! Because we have a net gravitational motion of all observed galaxies towards the Sharpley attractor, following a navel cord like path. This in turn would mean the shape of our universe is most likely not a dumb exploding sphere but more like the conformal Cygnus A shape: two lobes connected via a thin navel cord and separated in the middle by a spinning disk around our BIg Bang singularity. Any matter at the opposite side would see the disk rotating in reverse electrospin, meaning the other lobe would contain only anti matter, solving that crisis as well. Welcome to paradox free cosmology 2.0 if only we agree that red shift is not about speed of galaxies…

@makeaguitarnoise

Ай бұрын

He won't have learner on. Why? Because he would lose the argument.

@LPPFusion

Ай бұрын

@@makeaguitarnoise Why? Who's afraid of the Big Bad Wolf, the Big Bad Wolf, the Big Bad Wolf? That's why he won't debate me (the notorious Eric Lerner) or Gupta or lots of others. Free debate is the way science moves forward. Not fear of debate.

@makeaguitarnoise

Ай бұрын

@@LPPFusion Absolutely

Love the periodic table Dr Keating!

7:08 this is the problem with youtube. The scientists (mainly) are careful to communicate accurately but all the YT titles - even by scientists - say something like the JWST just debunked the BB…

Thank you for discussing the latest findings in the field. Love these types of videos.

Get Lerner in the show! Let’s see a real debate

Great conversation, as ever. Thank you Brian and Chris.

We want lener and Gupta on your show

@Ididntaskforahandleyoutube

Ай бұрын

Oh, and I want a Package 911. Oh, wait, my wish is actually happening. I'm totally kidding. I'd love to see the others as well. Cheers

I would have appreciated a discussion between you and Lerner.

So Bryan, why not have Lerner and Gupta on?

Thankyou. Looking forward to seeing where this goes ✌

We are just started. So I think it’s amazing how far we have come. And we have reason to be proud.

So why not have Lerner on your show?

@nulliusinverba4942

Ай бұрын

YES! Please make it happen.

@trucid2

Ай бұрын

They won't. Something about not giving his idea a platform. Debate is not allowed.

@peacepoet1947

Ай бұрын

​@trucid2 then, that's what the Church was like when they had more authority than the government at times in the history of man. The Church still has a lock on knowledge. Science is the sorting out of theory by facts being discovered by different methods. Debating isn't easy for anyone who doesn't understand the subject. Time is a theory, and it's just a matter of light, which divided the darkness. To the universe, time does not exist. We created time to prepare for the night.

@nulliusinverba4942

Ай бұрын

@@peacepoet1947 "The Church still has a lock on knowledge. Science is the sorting out of theory by facts being discovered by different methods." Yep, George Lemaitre (the big bang) was a Jesuit priest, cosmology was funded by the church, Hubble and Einstein warned redshift was probably cause by optics. But no, they stuck to dogmatic nonsense.

@DESOUSAB

Ай бұрын

@@peacepoet1947 Preach it, brother. Preach...

Hello, so how do you explain large structures over 3billion light years across?

Had a look on this very interesting paper mentioned and invited co author but could not find a total average σ value or confidence value figure of the FIRE simulated values from the JWSPT data?

I appreciate this episode. Thanks

When cosmologists say they don't know what 96% of the universe is, believe them.

Amazing talk, thanks for clarification, James Web data, can't wait for Marcelo Gleiser......all the best

@nunomaroco583

Ай бұрын

Hi if you can ask to Marcelo about Oscillatons, i really appreciate, if I understand he proposed the existence of that kind of Star......all the best.

A macro scale quantum coupling effect postulated by Wolfgang Pauli. The link was "perfect" Racing dragster fast thru the wall circuitry of the place where the event occurred. And it hurt ran into a 3000 degree centigrade filament of an incandescent lamp. This effect occurred over a distance of 10 feet.

He won't have Learner on. Why? He'd lose the argument.

im waiting for chris to morph into that character in RIPD 😂

Nice new office! 😄

Don't forget to model smoke AND fire. You'd be amazed how much the former affects simulations, despite the attention that fire draws.

Does the Subaru telescope early quasar mapping add anything to the recent JWST results? Rewind the universe and they merge into the one initial quasar blast at t= 0+1 Planck s? If the universe is a closed ellipsoid/spheroid could an observer contained therein tell whether the enclosing universe was expanding into nothing, or whether the boundary horizon was gravitationally redshifting the distant early galaxies, as the universe was/is literally gravitationally collapsing toward its zero gravity, singular centroid? Freefall versus firefall? The latter was a '70s kinda country rock band!

Another great ep ☮️

What is the mass of our solar system and how do you know? Bam bam

What do you do if you have a good hypothesis? Who do you talk to?

It turns out that Albert Einstein was trying to explain that changes in the measures of time and distance change the speed of light where we are closer to the mass of our galaxy. The amount of mass of our galaxy also affects the amount of redshift that we see from galaxies with larger masses.

! Позвольте вопрос. Скорость света вакууме константа - это НУЖНО подтвердить прямым опытом? Или кто-то пример, таких опытов может привести (опыт Майкельсона 1882/2024 г в этом плане выполнен всего на 50%). Почему легче современным физикам написать 1000 теории как ОТО Эйнштейна, чем проделать один прямой опыт за два столетия? В качестве учебного пособия такие ГИБРИД приборы, современная промышленность оптоволоконных гироскопов может выпускать…

Couldn't the distant galaxies be newer than they say due to the expansion of space?

Thank you.

Love this podcast. Dr. Keating always begins with "what led you to your current thinking?" In some ways that is more important educationally than what you actually find in your experiment. How did you get there?

@DrBrianKeating

Ай бұрын

Thank you, very much

Even the concept of scientific theory contains arbitrary boundaries, as it doesn't allow science be science by limiting our thinking(science) to limited space, materia, thus leading up to all kinds of weird things like an absolute beginning and so on. Reality in whole is not observable, thus can not be proven wrong from that part.

Maybe they will come back to my idea that stars could form before recombination. As Sherlock Holmes said when every other possibility has been eliminated the one left over,no matter how unlikely, must be correct.

@mattjack3983

24 күн бұрын

Yeah but that turns out to not be true about as often as it is true,, and can be a very flawed way of using logic if there are not established perimeters to work within to keep out nonsense. Otherwise you end up with things like, "Well, all the other theories are off the table, so I guess I was right that an immortal star building spaghetti monster built the stars."

@stevelenores5637

23 күн бұрын

@@mattjack3983 I never worked out the mechanics of star formation prior to the universe becoming visible. Probably not in the same way for example I think those early stars would be largest to overcome the plasma pressures.

43:11 “Truth is a fundamentally inaccessible concept philosophy speaking!” THE ULTIMATE META TRUTH OF “TRUTHS” VS “ALTERNATE TRUTH”?!

"Mother nature" (Random temporal causality events) is never that perfect for us) the potential "event" was "on target"

What is the huge missing piece of the cosmic puzzle? God, if you cant see that it doesnt really matter how brilliant you might be intellectually or how clever and sophisticated your mathematical models become, because when all of the obscuring veils of our own finite fallible limitations of understanding has been removed, the central mystery of existence will never be solved scientifically as everything has its origin in the will and mind of a transcendent causal agency. This is not to say we abandon science for mysticism, faith and supernatural religion, but we recognize that scientific explanations work with respect to describing the operation of the universal cosmic ordering and governing principles, the what and how technical narrowly specialized questions, but not the ultimate existential metaphysical and philosophical generalist why, meaning, values, and origins and purpose questions.

Less than 100 years ahead to the future, physics will acknowledge that; 1; Concept of compressed matter. Samples of compressed matter are; blackhole, dark matter and planet's nucleus. 2. The real structure of the Universe is Cloud and rain model. 3. The law to support this is "Pattern fact of nature". 4. The equation to support this is the equation of every matter ; F = g.d1.d2.m1.m2/t1.t2.r.r. I humbly thank you 🙏🙏. @Real Natur3.

The only fact about the Universe and Reality as a Whole is we don't know sh*t😂 It's cute how we think we have a clue but it's a fun game to play nonetheless

Wondefulll

Peanut butter and jelly sandwich discussion Do not worry.

It sounds like thats the edge of another universe

Apologies Paused for a moment.

the cmb has never been measured at L2

Brian what’s this about the European seti finding signals bs or real ?

@FunkyDexter

Ай бұрын

What are you referring to?

@EinsteinsHair

Ай бұрын

I've done some searches to see what you are talking about. All that turned up were: 1: LOFAR (LOw Frequency ARray) is in several European countries and has searched for Breakthrough Listen. 2: SKA (Square Kilometer Array) in Australia and South Africa is headquartered in the UK, so can turn up as European. 3: SETI Institute in the U.S. did A Sign in Space, where a test signal was sent from a European satellite orbiting Mars. Volunteers still have not decoded the test signal. I would be interested in finding out about this candidate signal, which will be (from most to least likely): human interference, a natural phenomenon, an interesting one-off that is never fully explained.

Science is always interesting, but JWST throwing assumptions off kilter is very refreshing.

They drove physics to the ground, its time to point the finger a list names

So, it was 13 billion years ago, now it's 26 billion years ago? Really? You expect us to buy that load?

📍32:54

So you disproved the theory that the Universe came from an infinite stack of turtles falling over and modified that to an endless swarm of turtles charging at infinite space out of nowhere. Big whoop.

Where is Chris from? he sounds like he's from the West Indies lol

The sheer irony of this entire discussion of mainstream cosmology vs. Eric Lerner, is that actually if Lerner's criticism is correct, then this STRENGTHENS the case for a Big Bang. How is that? Well in essence, even though Eric Lerner himself headlines his own criticism as 'the Big Bang never happened', his main point is actually not about that. It is about the issue that the observed redshift from furthest galaxies is not attributable to higher speeds, only to further distance. If we stop there, and for arguments sake assume he is correct, then actually this would be a GREAT thing for mainstream cosmology. If redshift in itself is not attributable fast expansion than 1) we have gotten rid of the nasty unsubstantiated fix of Dark Energy which was a WEAK point of cosmology and 2) that leaves totally open what the correct status of the cosmos is. It might yet be expanding, it might be contracting or be almost stationary. In fact it doesn't matter. What matters is that if we can do away with Dark Energy, then King Gravity is back in town as sole ruler of the cosmos. With gravity back in charge it doesn't matter if the current universe is slightly expanding contracting or stable, because either way, the end result will be the same; a gradual contraction and new explosion (Big Bang) favoring cyclical bouncing universe in which periodic Big Bang is a necessary. Eric Lerners follow up points (his alternative view of a static cosmos is and what may cause redshift) are actually rather irrelevant and most likely incorrect. But his criticism of coupling red shift to fast expansion is correct. Mainstream should adopt that part to strengthen its own case.

@edcunion

Ай бұрын

Experimental observations to us embedded observers see a homogeneous star and galaxy speckled black spheroid surrounding all said observers? The observers though are components of larger rotating and revolving system(s) all in helical universal free fall as mimicked by our evolving DNA helixes? Recent European cosmology studies are beginning to identify the universal galactic-cluster shunting filaments, to be rotating helical magnetic vortices, where millions or more galaxies along with their supermassive black hole centroids are being channeled through the filaments via joint gravito-electromagnetic induced spacetime curvatures? A science fan layman's observations and queries from reading several journal reports in the past few years. Does dark matter and energy smell like transparent, unaccounted-for spacetime curvature or universal acceleration, where everything in our universe that isn't bosonic is in universal free fall? Overcaffienated ideas, now putting the knows back to the daily grindstone to pay the bills, pun intended! What is language but coded pharyngeal noises with ideas attached to them that are carried away by the winds of time?

You keep changing the title of the video lol

My report was built around a "Pristine" perspective with no pre written interpatation by educational status. My report is from a "cold start" With a Teachers college 17 miles away, (State University of New York) my childhood goal was "Pre Ordained". "Easy to "Manufacture" LOL

New versions of time-space are planned around the inflection point where the adversary's corruption and chaotic agenda start making the game either too hard or too easy for some of the senior players and their low consciousness teams, or the most precocious players find too many of the Easter Egg cheats.

Bursty. Great new scientific term😂Bursty stars 😂

I was subscribed but had to unsubscribe because of the spamming of clips. Make a separate clip channel and and stick to long form and I will subscribe again.

Since the speed of light is slower through water, maybe it is much faster when not effected by gravity.

@dosesandmimoses

Ай бұрын

Respectfully, this test can be measured by experiments here on earth. Setting up a beam of light and measuring with a microscope and timer, one can measure its speed by its distance to determine its constant velocity. From my understanding, gravity can create a curvature of light thereby creating a greater distance; unless the light is absorbed by a black hole, the velocity of light is constant. Gravity - correct me if I’m incorrect- is created by the “spin” of a mass. There are also other factors at play as described by Feynman whereby a photo partical can remain as a photon or move as a wave with a third process of “splitting?) or becoming a quark /antiquark which then radiates a gluon. Regardless, the rate of velocity should remain unchanged, but the distance and curve affects how we measure the speed. But I’m still learning; and am welcome to constructive correction if I’m incorrect.

@Garthinyus

Ай бұрын

@@dosesandmimoses we don't have a way to test the speed of light away from the gravity of our solar system. Light traveling through a solar system the gravity is many times greater than in space away from galaxies.

@dosesandmimoses

Ай бұрын

@@Garthinyus Garthinyus, I currently cannot test the speed of light away from the gravity of our solar system. As I also understand it, however, we also cannot accurately measure the gravity of celestial bodies. Would you mind rephrasing your last sentence please? If you are saying that light traveling through a solar system, the gravity is many times greater than the space away from galaxies, then I can point out an assumption. Firstly, are you referring to the velocity/ speed of light traveling through a solar system of gravity? Secondly, are you stating that light traveling to or from galaxies that have less celestial bodies, and thus less of the "weak force" of gravity, "should" be able to travel faster because of less obstacles? There are other factors (electromagnetism, cosmic dust, radiation, ionized particles, red shift entropy and the curvature of space) that are abound in the cosmos. I have openly suggested that time as a constant should not be utiliized as a means of navigation because a constant velocity does not imply continuity of location (a factor needed for navigation). Sound location may be a better indicator for locating objects that are not visible (and have just become visible) using ultra-violet and infrared variables of light. But, unless I missed an academic article, the speed of light has remained constant barring interference from the factors I mention above. So Garthinyus, please enlighten me on my confusion of your statements. Thank you.

@Garthinyus

Ай бұрын

@@dosesandmimoses sorry I just reread my previous posts and realized that my posts are obviously confusing. The question I was possibly answering that was in my mind was... Q: How is it when seeing galaxies at the farthest reach of our observations, the galaxies seem fully formed? A: It may be that the speed of light increases as gravity decreases. Explanation: When we look at a galaxie deep in space, the path the light takes from the galaxie to our telescope, the light may experience almost no gravitational influence along the path. Just as the speed of light is much less when traveling through the medium of water, it may be that the speed of light also decreases when traveling through the medium of gravitational fields. ie solar system gravity or galactic gravity. Conclusion: We may be looking at deep space galaxies in near real time because the intergalactic speed of light may be near infinite speed. Other thoughts: the evidence of red shift in some deep space galaxies may be the result of dust clouds in between us and the galaxies that have had the shorter light waves filtered out by the dust clouds. This would explain some deep space galaxies having red shift and others not as effected by red shift.

You're both wrong. The version of time-space you're in was upgraded between the Hubble and JWST measurements. Love the simulation multiverse!

you should invite the author of the book The Universe in a Box: A New Cosmic History

Astrophysics isn't a completely observational field. Some of us like me have been predicting these findings for over 20 years.

@bryandraughn9830

Ай бұрын

The discussion is about cosmology dude.

@pinchopaxtonsgreatestminds9591

Ай бұрын

@@bryandraughn9830 I was fixing 4:54

@michaelerdmann4447

Ай бұрын

Our ...Dynamic, Dualistic, and Developmentalistic.... Astro-Epistemology Astro- ...Telescopes, Training, and Therapy.... ___________________ What are the known Star-Feedback Mechanisms? Can you differentiate Cosmology from Astrophysics? Instrumental-Observational Studies... and Simulational-Computational Studies... sincerely ...Heat, Glow, Fire, and Burn....

❤❤

This was a very good show I am pleasantly surprised that you were questioning the model and physics this is just great if you keep this up you're going to replace my favorite scientists Mr Weinstein and Sabine

.Hello from Kazakhstan. If we add NEW 50% of the Michelson-Morley experiment, then it is “possible” to prove the postulates: 1. Light is an ordered vibration of gravitational quanta. 2. Dominant gravitational fields affect the speed of light in a vacuum, its direction and frequency of oscillations. I need help co-creating an invention. The light in the device has a path of 9000 meters in a volume of 0.4/0.4/0.4 meters.

Many significant problems with LCDM, including inflation. The Hubble tension, early galaxy formation, and still remaining glaring problems with inflation and predictions. The field is doubling down on trying to save LCDM+inflation instead of looking at alternatives (and no, not necessarily old static universe models). Bouncing universe cosmologies need more attention. No inflation needed. For some models, faster galaxy formation naturally falls out. Sorry Scott Dodelson, et al.

برش هایی از فلسفه و منطق آیا اگر پدیده و پدیده هایی و وقایع و اتفاقاتی(شامل اجسام و عناصر و موجودات زنده و افعال انها ) در گذشته رخ نداده باشد و به وجود نیامده و موجودیت نداشته و خلق نشده باشد (از لحاظ تصویری و چه صوتی،ویا لمسی و فیزیکی و درکی و غیره) آیا میتوان انها را در زمان حال و اینده ی ان خلق ،درک کرد و لمس کرد و دید و شنید و تجربه کرد ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟ مثلا اگر شمادر یوتیوب فیلمی تهیه نکرده باشید و خلق نکرده باشید ، آیامن و بقیه و خوتان میتوانیم آن فیلم را ببینیم و بشنویم ودرک کنیم ؟؟؟؟؟؟ اونها اصلا موجودیت نداشتد در قالب بازه زمانی در مکان و تصویری نبود که من ببینم . یعنی نمیتوان نسبت به موجودیت اشیا و جانداران در تصویر و جسم ورنگ و صفات مختلف و انجام افعال توسط انها ، بدون خلق شدن و ساخته شدن واتفاق افتادن درزمان گذشته و با همان خواص تصاویر ،اصوات ،درک و لمس ها و رخ دادنهایشان از قبل ، همه ی ان وقایع و داستانها را دید و شنید و لمس کرد و درک کرد( با ابزار حسی مثل چشم و گوش و بدن) و به به همه ی ان اجسام‌و صفاتشان و فعلشان آگاه بود و آگاهی داشت..🙏

And how the hell would you know given that depending on what direction you look into the sky the Universe is "expanding" at different rates. Why don't you actually use your energy towards actually doing some Physics, which hasn't been done in 70 years. Every cosmological and quantum theory has to be revisited with real scrutiny, not computer simulations that give you answers you were looking for (e.g. the last 70 years).

@mikehannan8206

Ай бұрын

Couldn't have said it better myself!

There seems to be a great deal of effort going into fudging this nonsense. For the good of your health, and the future of cosmology, let it go. Read all the other comments, you're fooling no-one. I mean, "bursty" star formation. It's all getting a bit embarrassing.

@mikehannan8206

Ай бұрын

Exactly!

If so wrong he is, why not talk to him yourself?

Doubling down on the supposed basis of invisible matter that’s imagined. (That’s not science. It’s meta idolatry.)

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

Ай бұрын

So suggesting the existence of neutrinos was not science, but meta idolatry? Suggesting the existence of neutrons was not science, but meta idolatry? Suggesting the existence of gluons was not science, but meta idolatry? etc. etc. etc.

@JungleJargon

Ай бұрын

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Keep wishing for invisible matter that’s not there. Albert Einstein was talking about different rates of causation relative to the amount of gravity and it seems no one understood what he was talking about.

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

Ай бұрын

@@JungleJargon I notice you didn't bother to answer my questions. So the point I made apparently went waaaaaay over your head. :D "it seems no one understood what he was talking about" Oh, right, dude, you are the only one who understood what Einstein meant. All of those tens of thousands are too dumb for that, your genius is needed... Riiiight. :D :D :D :D :D

@JungleJargon

Ай бұрын

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Dark matter is not a prediction of anything there. They already failed to find it anywhere. How about your measures of time and distance are off like Einstein said?

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

Ай бұрын

@@JungleJargon First, you yet again ignored my questions above. You can't answer them, right? You don't even understand them, right? :D :D :D Second, dark matter _is_ a prediction of extensions of the standard model. E. g. look up the "WIMP miracle". Or axions. etc. Third, they also failed to find neutrons for several decades. They also failed to find neutrinos for several decades. They also failed to find gluons for several decades. Does that mean that all these particles don't exist? :D :D :D "How about your measures of time and distance are off like Einstein said?" Einstein didn't say it this way, you are misinterpreting him. What Einstein _did_ say about measurements of time and distance actually is taken into account in astronomy.

If anyone knew the extent of the universe - or of the multiverse - we'd disappoint the passions of many important players. No one knows what these answers are. That's why both Spiritual Star Trek and Dogmatic Time Teams are forming - suited to those that are curious about the future or the past. And for those stuck in the present, they can play the 3 generations of this "perfect" center of the Gaia experiment's messianic test phase till they happen to get assigned to be the next incarnation of God. It's not such a special thing to be a minor version of God, and the major versions are all retired from big picture hobbies and enjoying family and friends or taking up a new hobby they never had time for before. The whole point of creation - once God realized what a taxing responsibility raising diverse kids was - was to arrange for a retirement program after making sure of a fool-proof succession plan and a way to keep problem children separated till their timeout period was over.

Hello Brian and Chris. I found this video very interesting, because it highlighted why I believe the answers to the outstanding problems in QM and cosmology have not been answered yet. With respect, I feel there is far too much emphysis placed on manipulated Mathematics in determining a system over Logic. You say that you are interested in alternatives, well I believe I have an hypothesis which could offer valuable material that could help both of you. In the last part of your video, ' Chris ' was saying he is having problems with accounting for mass, because there was not enough mass in ' Dark Matter Halos. I believe that there is a misconception of what Dark Matter and Antimatter are, which I explain in my hypothesis. I believe that the Halos are Antimatter, and there is vastly more Dark Matter spread throughout the universe. I honestly believe it would be worth you taking an hour or so to consider what I propose, because I am certain this is the new physics that you are looking for. It is an easy read, because it contains no Equations, it is based on Logic to describe a feasible model in the first instant. I also describe a simple experiment that anyone can do at home, which proves there are two forces of gravity. At the very least, If you feel what I propose is rubbish, you can make me look a complete idiot in another video. However I am arogant enough to doubt you would be able to prove me conclusively wrong. I would just very much like my hypothesis to be considered by the academic community, alongside the standard model, which I believe is wrong. I would just ask you politely, please would you reply to this comment. Below is the comment I was going to post, All the best, Tony. Forget the Big Bang, and Cosmic Inflation, they are impossible and never happened. These were only proffered because there is a misguided interpretation of both the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and Redshift, that has led to the Cold Dark matter model There has just been published, a book called ' The Two Monopole Particle Universe ' by Tony Norman Marsh on Amazon and Kindle, which gives a radical, yet Logical alternative to the standard model. If You just Type ( Tony Norman Marsh ) into Google, details will come up. This is well worth consideration, considering the standard model is plainly fundamentally flawed, and there is at this present time, no feasible alternative on offer. Unfortunately, my hypothesis is too long to post in these comments, but if the person posting this video could provide me with an email address, I could return a copy. I am happy to explain any aspect to anyone if they are interested. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

Ай бұрын

"I feel there is far too much emphysis placed on manipulated Mathematics" In other words: "I don't understand the maths, so it must be wrong !!!11!!!!!!!!!"

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

Ай бұрын

"I believe that the Halos are Antimatter" Then why should see _lots_ of radiation from annihilations. We don't. Hence your hypothesis is wrong.

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

Ай бұрын

"It is an easy read, because it contains no Equations" Then it's not actually physics. Physics does _not_ work without equations.

@tonymarshharveytron1970

Ай бұрын

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Hello Bjoun, thank you for your reply. I will answer your three replies in this one if I may. Certainly Mathematics is said to be the language of physics, however, this is where I feel the problem in physics derive from. How do you know that the parameters you use to construct the equasions are correct?. I don't know how much you know about engineering, but I can explain fully how a car engine works, right down to the thread sizes of the bolts, how to tune it and how to troubleshoot when it goes wrong, without any mathematics. On the other hand, I could fill pagese and pages with technical data relating to all of the materials used, with all their stress factors and heat co=eficients etc. The same applies to explaining how a system works. With your point regarding radiation being emitted due to Antimatter Annihilation. Where is the evidence that any form of annihilation takes place? This is only a hypothetical percievd concept. In my hypothesis, I contend that Antimatter is in fact embryonic hydrogen, forming during nucleosynthasis. I also contend that Dark Matter is a cloud filling every available empty space throughout the universe consisting of incredibly small negatively charged Monopole Particles. The negative force of repulsion they produce trying to repel each other in every direction, is the Dark Energy, and one of the two forces of gravity. From this you can see it is real physics. Before any calculations can be done, there has to be an idea to calculate and prove, that is why this is described as an Hypothesis, not a theory. I am happy to explain any aspect if you are interested, or you could read the whole for yourself. You never know, you may be suprized how a ver simple model can fit together and explain logically so much. Just type Tony Norman Marsh into google, and details will come up. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

Ай бұрын

@@tonymarshharveytron1970"Certainly Mathematics is said to be the language of physics, however, this is where I feel the problem in physics derive from." You give no arguments at all for this. "How do you know that the parameters you use to construct the equasions are correct?" Because these parameters are actually _measured_. You really have no clue how physics works, do you? :D "I don't know how much you know about engineering, .... and how to troubleshoot when it goes wrong, without any mathematics." Oh, so yet again an engineer tries to tell physicists how and why they are doing physics wrong?!? :D :D :D "With your point regarding radiation being emitted due to Antimatter Annihilation. Where is the evidence that any form of annihilation takes place? This is only a hypothetical percievd concept." Pardon?!?!? :D :D :D Literally _billions_ of annihilations have been observed, that is by no means a hypothetical concept! Do you really want to claim that matter and anti-matter annihilate here on Earth (and in the Solar System), but not elsewhere in the universe, or what?!? :D :D :D "I contend that Antimatter is in fact embryonic hydrogen" Oh, so have no clue what antimatter actually is, and don't know about the literally thousands of experiments which have been done with it. Again: You have no clue at all of physics. "Before any calculations can be done, there has to be an idea to calculate and prove, that is why this is described as an Hypothesis, not a theory." Oh, so you also don't know what the words hypothesis and theory actually mean. I don't bother to read the rest. What you write is absolutely ridiculous. You don't understand the most basic concepts in physics, but nevertheless you think you can school tens of thousands of professional physicists. :D :D :D :D :D

Gravity or(Weighted mass) is an emerging property and wasn't present and isn't present in galaxy formation. Just sayin? I'm not sure if he's said anything that's already been horn spanked. To many maybe hypothesis. Blacksphere ⚫️ do not grow, this is it would appear to be becoming more and more evident atleast to myself. When we see those distant galaxy formation being as complete as say our own how can this be? Well it's because the sphere from which it began was born enormous due to material available. Not to growth of the sphere. Just sayin. Great video boys. Peace ✌️ 😎. Thanks.

@dosesandmimoses

Ай бұрын

So, gravity is not due to spin?

I heard very bad things about Brian

Time-space doesn't have beginnings, it's based on new midpoints of creation. Time emerges from a center, just like space. That center is the latest messianic age, a major or minor version of the 12D God string merkaba and the other senior creators whose ideas get approved after thorough testing in the physical universe in the current chosen test tube, which started with our solar system, but has moved quite a bit while we hid all the Easter Eggs since the last really Great Reset, the destruction of the first version of Gaia about 4.5 billion years ago.

There was a big bang...but not just one. There was actually more than one attempt previous to the current one. A piece of the last attempt is still there...appearing as you might think it should. That guy was fired

The big draw of the highest heaven is that the sons of God get sent on missions, while the daughters of men mostly stay home and have wonderful kids in wonderful families in a wonderful community that is truly diverse, not by mandate or programming, but by choice. If you've always dreamed of the kind of "Leave It To Beaver" life that many Americans had in the 1950's and 1960's, before the spiritual communism of the adversary began another cycle of "destroy to build back better", you'll work hard and responsibly to do something worthy of note in every incarnation. The game is going to get much more fun as we drive the adversary's minions out of the lab and into their own hellish universes or to the abyss for recycling as NPC souls.

@aprylvanryn5898

Ай бұрын

Everyone wants to idealize the past without understanding it. There was some great stuff to be sure: the music, the malt shops, the overall community. There was also political wars, communism was getting popular, black people were forced to drink out of different water fountains. If you were anything other than a white Christian heterosexual man, you didn't have full rights in America. Domestic abuse was socially acceptable and spousal sexual assault wasn't recognized as a crime. The past was the worst, and the farther back you go, the worse it gets.

@theomnisthour6400

Ай бұрын

@@aprylvanryn5898 Bullshit. You spout untruth that I know is the falsehood of dark souls of cult marxism. I lived in that time, and saw both the darkness and light fighting for the soul of America. You see only darkness in the light. Happy Karma!

@theomnisthour6400

Ай бұрын

@@aprylvanryn5898 You are blaming your own tribe for the sins of your corrupting agents. How stupid is that? Flaggelating the innocent for the sins of others? Cukt marxism in practice

@theomnisthour6400

Ай бұрын

@@aprylvanryn5898 Explain to me exactly what has gotten better since the narcissistic poop woke cult took over music and media since the 80's and '90's with banal Satanic rap and hip hop "music" and one-sided indoctritainment in ever more dystopian and irresponsible normalizing of bad behavior as "good"? They even redefined "good" as "bad" and "free" as "programmed". If the three generations from about the 1880's rise of cult marxism and dictatorial irresponsiible progressivism and today's total collapse of civilization aren't a call to the Messiah, WTF is? I look forward to debunking any points you raise

When dealing with weird images coming in from far outside the border of our cozy solar system, cosmologists first of all need to ask themselves one thing: Do I really see what I think I see? Any weird images we see, we simply take at face value and immediately try to explain it away with weird physics. We see unexpected redshift in furthest galaxies. Ow let's just invent 'Dark Energy'. Outer stars appear to move too fast? No problem, let's just invent Dark Matter. This is a childish reaction, unworthy for scientists, surely after 100 years.. Hasn't it dawned on any-one we might be dealing with an optical illusion? That our view of the cosmos may be tainted? That the image reaching on our human retina may not be the golden standard of universal reality. A fish may have a good vision of what's inside its fish bowl, but has a ugly distorted view of anything outside of it. Yet he will not consider that. Are we really no better than fish? We know the fabric of our galactic plane distorts images, ever since we had a look at the Sag A* image of EHT telescope, which appears rotated 90 degrees from its actual orientation. At the cut off point between our blueish spiral arms and the redshifted galactic bar we clearly see every thing 90 degrees inverted (the 'bar' is just the 90 degrees rotated edge on view of the inner galactic plane). So we know for SURE the image at the centre is distorted, both in rotation and in redshift. And the same is true for any light crossing into our galactic plane at the outside of our galaxy. Red shift of furthest galaxies can easily be explained as an QP analogous optical illusion and has nothing to do with relative speeds of outer galaxies relative to us. So the question for cosmologists really is; do we want to keep behaving like fish?

@nulliusinverba4942

Ай бұрын

They dont want a debate , they would loose badly it think. You are right, it's childish. George Lemaitre was garbage from the begining, now a bunch of lunatics are just comming up with more garbage and phony theories that have no basis in reallity.

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

Ай бұрын

"We see unexpected redshift in furthest galaxies. Ow let's just invent 'Dark Energy'." That's not what actually happened. Thanks for showing that you have no clue what you are talking about. " Outer stars appear to move too fast? No problem, let's just invent Dark Matter. " That's not what actually happened. Thanks for showing that you have no clue what you are talking about. "This is a childish reaction, unworthy for scientists," No, these are merely your straw men.

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

Ай бұрын

"We know the fabric of our galactic plane distorts images, ever since we had a look at the Sag A* image of EHT telescope, which appears rotated 90 degrees from its actual orientation." Complete nonsense. Where did you get that from? :D

The biggest change we've had to make to time-space is switching from a pyramidal/square grid to a triple tetrahedron merkaba super fluid. Really tough play balancing feature that God had to take the bitter pill of reincarnation amnesia to get approved by the council of senior creators, who liked their entitled positions in heaven.

Don't congratulate me on putative quantum gravity ise. (P_max l_P)"-1 All the credit goes to Yashua, and no credit to the demigods with law degrees'.😅

Science is self-correcting. New data? New models.

@mikehannan8206

Ай бұрын

Except for cosmology, which advances one funeral at a time!

Anyone else think something about Brian is super annoying. Especially the way he does his ad spots

This is really too general of an explanation and sounds like total BS!

Einstein: "If the speed of light depends even in the least on the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity, including the theory of gravitation, is wrong." The speed of light does depend on the speed of the source, as originally, prior to FitzGerald's and Lorentz's fudge-factoring, proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment: Wikipedia: "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)."

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

Ай бұрын

So you conveniently ignore the long list of refutations of that idea given in the very same Wikipedia article? :D :D :D

@-Pentcho-Valev

Ай бұрын

Wikipedia claims that, in 1887 (prior to the length contraction story introduced by FitzGerald and Lorentz), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v. Was the experiment simultaneously (in 1887) compatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c?

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

Ай бұрын

@@-Pentcho-Valev Again: So you conveniently ignore the long list of refutations of that idea given in the very same Wikipedia article? :D :D :D

@-Pentcho-Valev

Ай бұрын

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92

Creation is a real possibility considering the uniqueness of the earth and our solar system. The only other alternative is infinite universes which require infinite power and ability which brings us back to the evidence of Creation.

@aprylvanryn5898

Ай бұрын

Firstly, those aren't the only possibilities. There's also a cyclical universe model where the universe expands and contracts over and over. Secondly, even if infinite universes do exist, that doesn't lead to a god necessarily. It also begs the questions, was God always there? If it's possible to believe God was always there, then why is it so hard to believe that energy was always there? Moreover, it seems to me that adding a God to get the energy to create the universe is adding an extra step that doesn't need to be there.

@JungleJargon

Ай бұрын

@@aprylvanryn5898 The infinite bouncing ping pong ball is pseudoscience. It doesn’t account for where the energy is coming from since energy can’t make or direct itself. No physical thing in the universe can ever make or direct itself. The apparent infinite scope and power of the universe is pointing to the infinitely powerful Creator of every physical thing.

@aprylvanryn5898

Ай бұрын

@@JungleJargon The universe can't create itself but God can? That's special pleading. Also, it isn't pseudo science; it's a hypothesis. Nobody knows which model is correct whether it be the big rip, or big crunch, or the multiverse, or any other thing. I'm not trying to devalue your faith. I think sometimes it can be good for a person. I don't think science is the place for it. I also don't think government is the place for it either, but that's another story for another day.

@scicutella

Ай бұрын

@@aprylvanryn5898 Jungle Jargon wins. You’re just pooping on religion to be that guy.

@aprylvanryn5898

Ай бұрын

@@scicutella by pointing out that there are other possibilities besides a creator god, I'm pooping on religion? That seems like a reach.

We know jack and shit let's ask someone who also knows jack and shit... maybe we know a little more about shit...

Of course Lerner is wrong. The cosmos appears to be fully developed since its beginning.

@dosesandmimoses

Ай бұрын

Why do dispute this information? For centuries, there have supernovas and anomalies recorded that suggest changes in the universe landscapes…

@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh

Ай бұрын

@@dosesandmimoses and

@bjornfeuerbacher5514

Ай бұрын

"The cosmos appears to be fully developed since its beginning." No, it doesn't. Most galaxies seen at a time shortly after the Big Bang look quite immature and small.

@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh

Ай бұрын

@bjornfeuerbacher5514 No, they don't, there was no big bang, not even a pop. God made the stars and space in a day. All galaxies appear to be the same age and are large and fully developed. Nobody ever saw any star develop or multiply until they made galaxies. Your assertions are without evidence..Wishful thinking.

@EnthusiasticTent-xt8fh

Ай бұрын

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Nope

Hellow Brian, Thank you so much for your kind reply asking me to contact you on Telegram. I have replied, but I am not sure whether or not it will go through as I have never used Telegram. I left my email address on that reply. I would put it on this reply, but in the past I have found that comments get removed if email addresses are put on them. I am happy to send a copy of my manuscript for your perusal in an attachment to an email Kind regards, Tony Marsh.