The universe isn't roughly 14 billion years old, it's AT LEAST 14 billion years old. We can't see beyond that because of the "event horizon"; we already know that, it's no secret.
If a galaxy that is older than the age of 13.7 billion years means we can't see it, then how can we see those stars he was talking about at the beginning that are much older? He kind of made his explanation turn on itself.
Hmm, I like your thinking! But I shall remain a skeptic, as I am about most logical things. I am no astronomer (or at least not yet!) so I shall leave an intelligent conclusion to an intelligent person.
Actually, an Event Horizon is the point of a black hole at which nothing escapes, not even light. Stupid people I can abide. Stupid people trying to talk as if they know of something they do not, I can do nothing but loath.
@tomgrazer For black holes, the event horizon is a surface (not a point) that contains all the entropy. This gives rise to a hot stretched horizon due to Hawking radiation that exists only in accelerating frames (not in free fall). The term "event horizon" also means more generally that which is beyond detection in principle and independent of technology. Loath thyself.
@ecclnve In 2011 the Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to Dan Schechtman for his discovery of quasicrystals. In 1982 when this discovery was made, it was "known" that there could be no such thing. As Linus Pauling famously remarked, "There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasiscientists." Schectman was even asked to resign from his professional society. This is the rule not the exception. If you want to know why, watch the movie "Dark Matter" starring Aidan Quinn.
@ecclnve In 2011 the Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded to Dan Schechtman for his discovery of quasicrystals. In 1982 when this discovery was made it was "known" that there could be no such thing. As Linus Pauling famously remarked, "There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasiscientists." Schechtman was even asked to resign from his professional society. This is the rule not the exception. If you want to know why, watch the movie "Dark Matter" starring Aidan Quinn.
The most precise estimate of the universe's age is 13.72±0.12 billion years old, based on observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation.Independent estimates (based on measurements such as radioactive dating) agree at 13–15 billion years
The universe has not been the same at all times in its history; for example, the relative populations of quasars and galaxies have changed and space itself appears to have expanded. This expansion accounts for how Earth-bound scientists can observe the light from a galaxy 30 billion light years away, even if that light has traveled for only 13 billion years; the very space between them has expanded
Of course, if it turns out that neutrinos indeed are the fastest buggers out there, and when we've determined their speed, we will probably be able to flush a lot of what we know down the drain... imagine that kind of clogging... but seriously, we can't even begin to imagine what would that mean potentially.
What is really amazing for most of scientists universe is what they see. there is big part of the universe is not visible to them because endless darkness or is it. It seems to me current scientists they are going through dark ages of human kind when earth was flat for then. They don't realize if we reach the end whatever they consider that they will see their is no end to it is that simple.
open your minds. we are taught what to think. our bogus history books should be the first clue. everyone is an expert at what they think they know and eventually that turns out to be wrong too. who really knows? we are merely humans living a short life. but i do like your arguments and factual statements. haha. it just reafirms my suspicions of how ignorant intelligence really is. thank you again.
@Offdaheez76 Except the Earth has geological features that are 4 billion years old. And not so intelligent the design if you know about all the flaws in the human body, which is why men get inguinal hernias, women get bladder infections, and everyone gets back aches.
@MoeRocco75 no, because the disigner of those machines is not onmipotent. your statement is only true if 1. both us and god are omnipotent or 2. neither of us are, both of which are unacceptable for theists.
@ProfMichaelson while that's true and I'm not here to troll you with relgion, I will point out that in the bible, adam and eve were cursed for disobeying god and he said, from this day you will die and you will experience pain in childbirth and then god cast them out of the garden of eden. basically man was perfect, but we stuffed up and god rendered us imperfect. and on the other hand, nothing wouth exist without imperfection, without inperfection, gavity would not have created the planets.
You really need to take a few courses in physics. This is why a little knowledge is said to be a "dangerous thing". You haven't the first clue what you're talking about, yet you're trying to pass this bullshit off as "information".
@gsmonks As a matter of fact, before I retried I taught courses in physics. Some of my post-docs have gone on to distinguished careers. In a decade or so when astronomers have discovered even more active galaxies that are impossibly young, you'll understand that the universe must be older than you thought. But you'll never know why because you were taught what to think instead of how to think.
It's difficult to respond to this video without knowing where you get the idea that there are stars of known age greater than 13.7 billion years; the abstract of the paper you partially cite does not say. However, the abstract itself contains (at least) two factual errors: 13.7 billion years is not arrived at by naive inversion of the Hubble constant, because the expansion rate is not constant. And there *is* observational evidence that gravity slowed the early expansion. The rest is pap.
@pseudorandomly That's right, the radial motion is not and never was uniform. Consequently, instantaneous distance takes the form of ds = 0.5at^2 (not vt) and instantaneous speed is dv = at. By direct substitution the Hubble constant becomes H = 2/t. But if you use 13.7 billion years for t and the best value for H, then you get H = 1/t. WHich is it? Mathematical self-consistency is not pap. And we just recently discovered a quasar with such a large Z that it shouldn't have had time to develop
There's no mathematical inconsistency here. The H=1/t formula assumes the expansion speed has been constant over the lifetime of the Universe. The s=at^2/2 formula assumes the *acceleration* has been constant over the lifetime of the Universe. These are two completely different and incompatible assumptions. If a train drives a mile down a track at a constant speed, that will take a different amount of time than if it starts from zero and accelerates constantly for one mile.
@pseudorandomly The H = 1/t only assumes that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Use that value for t and used the measured Hubble constant and it only take a little algebra to get H = 1/t. The assumption of constant acceleration is an idealization to make the problem easy. Do you know about pertubation theory? A common whimsical explanation: In order to heat a pot of water, a physicist will put it on the floor first and then move it to the stove because he knows how to do that.
H=1/t does not assume the Universe is 13.7 Gy old; rather, t=1/H computes the Hubble time, which is the age of the Universe calculated assuming the current value of Hubble's constant (H-nought) is unchanged back to the beginning of the Universe (i. e., acceleration = 0). We *measure* H-nought and *calculate* t from that. Your own video says this at 0:39. You don't need algebra to get H=1/t; Hubble's constant is *defined* to have units of inverse seconds.
@pseudorandomly You're missing the logic. First, ASSUME that t = 13.7 Gyr. Then you can DERIVE H = 1/t using the measured value of H. This has to be wrong because it implies uniform radial velocity. So, you can either throw out the measured value of H in order to preserve the assumption that t = 13.7 Gyr (which is religion) or you can reject the hypothesis that t = 13.7 Gyr assumption based on the experimental counter-example (which is science).
No. You have ahold of the stick at the wrong end. It is true that the Hubble time calculated from 1/H assumes uniform radial velocity. That assumption is KNOWN TO BE INCORRECT. The point you're missing is that the value of the Hubble constant is only valid *now*. In the past, the value of the Hubble constant was DIFFERENT because the speed of expansion was different. H=1/t is valid no matter what the value of the Hubble constant is; you don't assume a time and derive it.
@pseudorandomly I think you're talking about H0 in v = sH0 where s is the proper distance to a galaxy. This changes over time unlike the comoving distance. The reciprocal of H0 is the Hubble time, not the age of the universe.
Bingo! Now you've got it! Inverting the Hubble Constant yields the Hubble time. Now we can start working on the fact that (at^2)/2 is only valid for *constant* acceleration, which is patently not the case when dealing with the expansion of the Universe. Then we'll finally have licked your apples and oranges argument. I'm sorry if I seem a bit roundabout; you have so many misconceptions that it's difficult to know how to efficiently dispel them in a few hundred characters.
@pseudorandomly So you don't want to talk about H rather than H0, or aging as opposed to the limits of observation, or the fact that over a long period of time the mean acceleration is a good approximation for a popular video that should avoid differential equations. Find out what happens to the stretched horizon when an astronaut jumps out of a spaceship orbiting a black hole. No superpositioned states, no reversibility.
I've already mentioned that H-nought is the current value of the Hubble Constant, and that the Hubble Constant varies with the age of the Universe. The stuff you just wrote about black holes is a complete non sequitur, meaningless in the context of this discussion.
Here's what you're doing. Leave Hubble's Constant out of this. d = vt (distance = velocity x time). d = (at^2)/2 (where a is acceleration). So vt = (at^2)/2, yielding 2v = at. But wait! v = at, so we have 2at = at or 2 = 1. Is all of the physics of motion broken? No, what's happened is that d = vt is valid for unaccelerated motion, but we equated it to a value for accelerated motion. That's where your factor of 2 comes from.
@pseudorandomly Sorry about the black hole, I was trying to make an analogy with entropy, which has a lot to do with ageing. But you're right, let's keep it simple. By definition dx/dt = f' ' (t) = H0s. But f(t) has to be non-linear or you get uniform velocity meaning you need t^k, k>1. The way you got H0 = 1/t was by differentiating. More generally it is k/t where k is the power of t and k>1 so that f(t) can be non-linear and the velocity non-uniform.
@ProfMichaelson ProfMichaelson, very interesting video. I am really interested in the high redshift quasar that was recently discovered. Can you tell me how I can google it? Thanks again...
The current ideas on the size of the Universe are based on rather more than mere speculation. But I fail to see why speculation on one single point immediately demonstrates that it's *all* speculation. For instance, that the Universe is expanding and has a finite age is not at all based on speculation.
@pseudorandomly There are just as many leading scientists who claim that the universe is eternal and doesn't have boundaries. So, I see, through these differences of opinion that this truly is "speculation". After all, no-one in reality, really knows the answers. They'll make up ANY "theory" just to deny the existence that a "Higher Power" is responsible for everything we see. We "see" less than 1% of the universe, yet we "think" we know it all about all of it, how it started, how it willend etc
@bheadh You're right, science doesn't offer enough evidence for it's claims, lets all turn to religion which is known for providing evidence for it's claims. There is so much we don't understand about the universe, that there must be a higher power. We should have given up on trying to figure out the universe thousands of years ago when we attributed weather storms, earthquakes and the rising of the sun to the Gods, things would be much better now.
@musk02000 Maybe it would've been better for you that way, not me. I don't think science and religion are exclusive, like you. In fact the person that came up with the theory of the big bang was a Catholic priest from Belgium (LeMaitre). He didn't have a problem with science, because he was a scientist. Science is all about Hypothesis, experiment, conclusion. It can't answer what it doesn't know. So if it doesn't know what happened, it has more experimenting to do before making claims, not anwer
@musk02000 Amen to that. Science is the enemy of religion. There has always been unanswered questions since man has been able to think of those questions, and religion provides false answers to those questions, which is counterproductive to science, because science is the constant pursuit of the answers to those questions. Religion slows down the progress of man kind. Science speeds it up. When you look at history, that is easily verifiable. The Spanish Inquisition as one extreme example.
i can accept is as fact, but space expanding faster than the speed of light ? O.O
speed of light being 7 times around the earth in 1 second. how does that affect the doppler shift and is that not accurate as well. i apologize but i am only recently aware of my SQ average (+13) minimum being -17 and max being +50. By the way, does dark matter play a role in this expansion of space.
@RiaRadioFMHD773 We only think space expanded faster trhan light for an instant after the Big Bang. Dark matter has nothing to do with the expansion of the cosmos except for slowing down the acceleration. Halos of dark matter are what keep the outer stars in galaxies from flying off.
It is not about the then or the now, we are in a fish boll imagining about what is there, connected with it, part of it, travelling along. We humans tend to think only about ourself's in this journey. Talking about Evolution like it ever stops or it was a time called Evolution is absolutely empiric - you are riding a wave. It flows thrum your body atoms, is pure energy on a molecular level. Is life but not only human.
I suggest reading all of the WMAP papers on arxiv (start with Komatsu et al.). My colleague in my office was on the team that discovered that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate (i.e. Nobel prize this year!) and our concordant measures of age indicators are all congruent to an age large than all the content (which was a problem 30 years ago). All the best.
@astudyofeverything Better question: I think it ironic that Vera Rubin of all people doesn't believe in dark matter but thinks that the eq. for orbital speed is wrong despite being the same for both Newton and Einstein. But at this point I'm really puzzled by the Earth-fly-by anomaly. It's beginning to sound like Mercury and Vulcan all over again. Do you guys have any thoughts? And thanks for your comment.
I don't see it as ironic, Einstein didn't believe in black holes even though it followed directly from his equations. I suggest you watch the debate between Prof. Simon White of Max Planck and Pavel Kroupa of Bonn. watch?v=EZF9bPVOsb4&feature=related
Please remove this video, it is entirely false. If you're wondering if the is actually true, please read any physics or astronomy paper other than this.
@musk02000 Obviously, the anonymous experts who served as reviewers of our paper disagree. What you should do is present a valid argument that it's wrong and submit it to a peer reviewed journal. Opinions alone don't count in science, as any atheist should know.
@ProfMichaelson Fine, you can believe this video, or you can believe Nasa. Google "Age of the Universe" the first article is from NASA, which takes your equation into account and still shows the acurate age of the universe at 13.7 billion years
@musk02000 Unlike the Pope, NASA doesn't claim to be infallible. How could they when they were so tragically wrong about foam from the solid booster not damaing the shuttle? You need to stop appealing to authority.
@ProfMichaelson I think what you mean to say is that you are a more reliable source of information on the cosmos than NASA. As a fellow professor I would hope that readers of this thread would not find my "appealing to authority" more repugnant than your arrogance.
@musk02000 I'm saying EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE: that human authority doesn't count in science because nature doesn't give a hoot what humans think. Not that long ago, we were all certain that the rate of cosmic expansion was slowing due to gravity. The fact that everyone believed it didn't make it true. And now we have no explanation for the 96% of the cosmos that isn't baryonic. But that's what makes science exciting, Mother Nature is always surprising us.
@ProfMichaelson I respect your view on the unknown and I do not want to promote accepting the views of authority only on the basis of authority. I do resent your judgement of me appealing to authority however. I also disagree your presentation of this information as "Astonomy's best kept secret" as if the scientific community were secretive and you have uncovered their lies. As for nature not giving a hoot for what humans think, this does not degrade my arguement anymore than yours.
This would be a valid argument if we were not able to cataloge increasingly dimming galaxies from further and further away. This is bad math and bad science. The redshift calculations from S1a events is clear and difinitive. While the idea could be postulated that a galaxy (in its own frame of realitivity) could move away from us at the speed of light, we would still see the light given off from it. The redshift would be extreme though... Thats like saying a ss jet gives off no sound.
@DaBluedude100 So you don't believe x = 0.5at^2? Take the first derivative. The equation states that velocity = acceleration x time, true by definition! The "secret" is that nature agrees even if cosmologists don't. See, for example, the distant quasar ULAS J1120 + 0641.
Dude, we can see images of pre-stellar hydrogen gas that is 13.7 billion years old. That identifies the oldest Universal material that we can see, and its not in the form of stars (its too soon after the big bang for stars to have existed yet). That means the Universe is *not* any older than about 13.7 billion years old.
@ProfMichaelson The *starlight* is about 13 billion years old. But the space in the universe is expanding at that same time. So its actual distance from us is *currently* 28.5 billion light years away because of this expansion. UDFj-39546284 is even further away at 31.7 billion light years.
You assumption of straight linear measurement assumes that space remains constant, which is not the case. This is cosmology 101 in the modern era.
@websnarf Expanding space doesn't change the speed of the light, it only scales down wavelength and frequency. That's why the CMB is now in the microwave spectrum. If a galaxy is currently 31.7 billion light years away, then it must have been receding for more than 31.7 billion years because it hasn't been moving much faster than light. Not even if muon neutrinos can move slightly faster than light, and the jury is still out on that.
I don't fully agree with the video, however; there is a new space telescope getting ready to be launched by NASA that will ONLY look at starts that are in the ultra violet spectrum because they are so far away and moving a way from us at such a rate their red shift has moved into the UV. So it is true there are stars and galaxies "outside" our "observable" horizon.
@Relativisticism it is possible but the light travels at a constant speed regaurdless of its distance. Its the space expanding not the light... however a galaxy shifted into the UV spectrum would still only be moving at a small fraction of the speed of light. This video proves nothing but contradiction. As the space between our galaxy and an 'event horizon' galaxy would have to continue to expand at a relative rate greater than the speed of light. Current estimates do not support that.
Nonsense, if the universe itself was created, it can also occur anywhere, which means that there can be endless universes, which means that in those universes there can be anything wee can imagine and not imagine, which means that if I imagine that in one of those universes there are aliens who want to come to the sex they will come to that, because if something is infinite all is possible.
If you are a truth seeker, search "Truth Contest" in Google and click on the 1st result, then open The Present and read what it says. Everyone needs to see this. The Present will turn this world right-side up if it reaches enough people. You will see what I mean when you read the first page.
If astronomers didn't want us to know about this, then how come a paper was published on it, and why is there a youtube video. If their idea was to hide this from people, they did an awful job. It is more likely, that no one is trying to hide this from us. And if someone is, then tells us specific names. Don't just say that some unknown group of people who can not be mentioned by name are hiding something.
2. cont'd In other words, you cannot calculate an accurate expansion rate of the universe wihout taking into account the speed of the observer (the earth in this case) along with the speed of the galaxy that we are observing. I can't believe this is so poorly presented and has so many views. But there are some very educational demos that don't get nearly as many views. If you want to talk about a conspiracy...how about DUBMING DOWN THE PUBLIC...
2. cont'd we would have no way of measuring the speed of the universe unless we were an observer outside of the universe...but where would that be? In other word how could we observe the universe outside of our own universe and measure it's speed. Nonetheless, if the universe is moving at a constant rate...then everything in the universe would have to be moving at that same constant rate which would kill the equation because velocity of galaxy rushing away from us would be zero. If not, then ...
2. cont'd If you take into accont relativity...then you'll see if the universe is moving at a constant rate, and if everything is part of the universe...then everything is moving at the same rate. So if we observe a galaxy from earth, then if we are both moving at the same speed and in the same direction, then we would measure that the galaxy is not rushing away from us at all and it's velocity would be zero relative to us (on the earth). But then we know that the universe is moving...but...
2. cont'd. Velocity is distance over time...so we could theoretically solve for a time. But we'll find out that this doesn't make sense either.... You're telling us the velocity is constant. but you don't tell us what the value is...more confusion. Then you're hypothesizing that the universe moves at constant rate...then you're making an assumption that all galaxies move at a constant rate. That's fine but what are these rates? Also, you are not taking into account relativistic speeds here...
2. The first thing that you do is solve for the age of the universe using Hubble's equation. You skip a few steps here that makes the problem difficut to understand. First of all... you solve for T using Hubble's equation...but T is not a variable in Hubble's equation (as you have presented it here). The variables that you have presented here are V(velocity of galaxy rushing away from us -> earth?), s(distance of that galaxy ->from us? -> earth?), and H(Hubble's constant).
This is interesting until you think about it ... then you realize that ProfMichaelson has made way too many assumptions. I'll take the time to explain why can understand the errors in logical reasoning that are abundant in this presentation. 1. Your hypothesis is that there are stars older than the age of the universe. Instead of verifiying this by observation, you are using logical reasoning and deduction. OK...I'll go with this...now let's check out your reasoning...
Why do we see older stars and galaxys? Two reasons: the Black Hole at the center of the Universe periodically breathes, so mini-creations ensue, only to be swamped with plasma during the next cycle. These account for the "bumps" in the early bumpy nature of the Plasma-scape. Second reason: like our sun is part of the Sagitarius Galaxy, now raped by the Milky Way as the Sagitarius arm, so too were early sister Universes consumed by our own. Plasma Theory DEMANDS there be neighboring Universes
The problem I have with this is we have detected our Universe has a slight rotation, indicating that it is a closed system in a state of equilibrium. The search for Dark Matter/Energy is rewarding in many ways, but redundant. Why Red Shift? Because light organizes itself into a series of regularly manifesting concave lenses. The further away we look, the faster those objects appear to be moving away from us. It's an illusion! Our Universe looks like a Galaxy, we see filamentary arms even!
He seems to be neglecting the fact that because the edge of the observable universe is only as far away as the universe is old that when we look at that edge we see the universe when it was in its infancy. In other words, we do see objects that are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. We just see them when they were much younger.
This kind of thing bugs me a whole lot. Like so many of these arguments do. I'm not about to argue with your math. It's all of the assumptions that go along with it that I simply cannot resolve. Which really leaves me nowhere. I didn't buy the 13.6by argument, and doubling it doesn't do a thing to make it any more believable. I still think they have absolutely no idea, and probably never will.
speed of light doesn't add or subtract- is constant, it doesn't matter how fast object is moving, if object is moving faster than a speed of light it doesnt mean that light is going to move faster than a speed of light, or is going to go backwards if emmission is in direction opposite than moving object and follow object that is emitting this light. C-is constant, measurement is the real problem.
There is a signifigant flaw in this simple calcualation. The acceleration of space "a" is assumed to be constant in time. This is not supported and even contradicted by current observations. This is a problem mathematically as well since v=Hs gives a(t)=C*H^2*e^(Ht) where C is a constant to be determined empirically but that matters not tothe math. This is a function that changes value in time so long as H is not zero. I didn't even have to consult a book to debunk it. You are mistaken sir.
Our time b4 you start using time equations! is only this way on our planet! so using any time government & saying its true is a lie! no other planet in our system has our time! we are stuck at 528hz on this planet & only we are stuck in this time, (the people who stole our true knowledge created the calender we use which is wrong!!! there should be 13 months of 28 days & we should be using the 13th star isgn also like they did before we were enslaved!) I am not stupid sir! a realist.
@ThePianaman I am very concerned about you given your responses. I think you should consider talking to someone (professionally) and strongly recommend that you do. I hope that you are just exaggerating and don't really believe this stuff because it is indicative of a psychological break with reality. Talk to your family and see if someone is wiling to get involved. Contact me if you want to.
Just as there has been forbidden archeology there is forbidded astronomy. As long as the majority of the scientists can not get their heads around a finding the findings are unbelievable -- not true. Galileo too was almost excommunicated by the Church in his time.
Can you please explain your use of Newton's kinematic equations when you are dealing with relativistic velocities with the space that's expanding at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. That is, the space closer to the event horizon than more local regions. Also, can you give examples in these distant regions of space stars that are only luminous in the infrared spectrum or lower due to doppler shift?
@wkrepelin I wanted to keep it simple because superluminal inflation only occurred very briefly after the singular event, at least in the Standard Lambda CDM model. The greatest example of how the expansion of space red shifted light is the CMB.
@ProfMichaelson Not to be rude but that doesn't answer either of my questions. Furthermore you seem to me to be dodging the question. Other topics can wait for discussion. Please answer my comment directly. Again, 1 why no relativity? 2. Where are the outer regions of stars that are redshifted out of the visible spectrum? That is two questions and I would like two answers. If you choose to dodge the question again then we can just go our separate ways. Your hypothesis must stand under scrutiny!
@wkrepelin Also, if there would be no star formation in those regions? why? Are you claiming that the superluminal inflation early in the universe was just much greater than thought currently and causally disconnected us from large tracts of space? Would this somehow give the same appearance ans the CMB? Please support with more. Is all the info in your paper? Or can you give me the conditions to plug into the Friedmann equation and I'll crunch it. I just want something better than the video.
@wkrepelin During the long history of the universe, it was not accelerating at a relativistic speed, except, as I said, momentarily during inflation. The point I was trying to make about the CMB is that the cosmos was opaque at earlier times. The Z required to shift a star's entire spectrum into the IR depends on its spectrum and we haven't discovered many Zs that would shift gamma rays or even x-rays into the IR. But you're right, the video is intended to be popular and we're limited to 500 ch.
@ProfMichaelson Well, I'd say that's a fair position. While I do find it dubious that you make these claims on youtube before you hypothesis has been accepted by even enough of the scientific community for there to be a "camp" in your favor I do have interest. If you would refer me to more of your work I would like to investigate it's claims for myself and see if I can repeat the calculations etc. I need to work on my cosmology anyway. Let me know if you would help me with this.
Science lies & stops anyone challenging it in any way! look at the measurement problem & observing physics experiments! consciousness becomes part of it! photons act differently when humans are present! we have such limited senses & sight we are useless & finding truth! most books are used to control us! scientists make lots of things up! our pineal gland is the key! science wont even mention it! we are not physical! I found many electrical currents in us 10 years ago! im real! no lies!
Humans are dumb we were enslaved thousands of years ago! we even drink poison & eat it to keep us unwell. for some unknown reason we have to drink flouride everyday! its in our water! & despite years of writing to government & water companies no reason is ever given! it stops our pineal gland working! we brush our teeth & our advised to to eat toothpaste! doesnt matter when we are drinking gallons of flouride each week! so Prof BE HONEST! if you can. (we eat loads of legal poisons!).
imo the universe is not expanding its always been the same size its just undulating and is probalry just a big blob of an undefinable shape rather that the classic view of it being a nice big oval with nice exact dimensions ,and the age of the universe is not very relevent until we can fix the problems we have on earth like trying to feed the poor and look after the disabled and stop bombing children,
@nkzle The smart guys have figured it out but most still resist changing the accepted belief. This was also true of dark matter and is generally how science progresses. Seriously.
@ProfMichaelson Ah. I understand now. Well at the very least, the information is officially leaking out slowly but surely through science publications, but hardly on mainstream media. Confirming that the universe is much older than it is would rock many though.
@nkzle it would completely ruin their humpty dumpty model of the universe, including cosmic microwave background radiation calculations for "proving" the big bang. It is not that they are keeping anything secret, they are just waiting for retirement.
why dont u want to live for ever? there will be an infinite universe to explore ;) u wont stick to the same old things for ever. i wish i could live for ever
Possible errors in scientific theory do no more to prove the existence of superstitious divine beings any more than they do to prove unicorns and space fairies.
I got here by accident nc sad 99.99% of the people adding a coment here stopped school when te where 16 and started working am suprised the can post a comment.
dont look this videos is you dont know anything about LIFE go play with your stupid videogames noobs
fcking mine workers sientist earn 30x more money than you ordinary guys
Or, the universe could be any age--even infinitely old (and infinite in size, because the calculated mass of the universe is calculated using Hubble's constant), but the observable universe would always appear to be finite, giving physics doctoral students woodies thinking about how the universe "has to be" finite, but appears to be unbounded.
you started at v=Hs (1). then you did your physics101 and ended up at at=H1/2at^2 (2). if you were right, and from (2) follows H=2/t, then (1) cannot be true, which is bad, because it would mean, that your assumptions follow from a wrong premise...
(v=Hs is only an aproximation for very close galaxies. You are talking about far-away galaxies. Those two do not match)
How do we REALLY know this is how hold the universe is? Maybe all of our carbon dating and math is wrong. Maybe the Earth is only 10,000-6,000 years old? But, hey, who knows.
so is there any galaxys rushing towards us? becuase if there all rushing away FROM US, this must mean that THE CREATOR set them into motion from here.
@jingram1981 There are lots of galaxies rushing towards us, including the nearest one Andromeda. But galaxies separated by great distances all rush away from each other, not from a fixed point in space.
@ProfMichaelson ok so their is like 30 + - galaxies in our nieghbor hood right and their all seperated by great distance but one is rushing towards us ? have you seen the galaxies from the hubble telescope some of those clusterd galaxies move through each other and their are hundreds of them and only 30 something of ours and and andromeda is moveing towards us? i don't get your answer.
@ProfMichaelson Actually, recent observations have shown there is a biases in the blue/redshifts for different regions of hte Universe. If I remembe right, one set of observations shows there is a slight bias in one direction of all matter we can see. The immediate suggestion for this bias is that their is another Universe next to us and its gravity is tugging on us every so slightly. Other observations have show significant differents of redshift based on the direction of point from Earth.
@fcsuper True. And exciting. If our universe is being linearly pulled by the gravity of another universe, rather than expanding radially, it would shake up cosmology but support Randall's explanation for the weakness of gravity (see "Photos of a 4 dimensional object" on this channel).
How can you messure time in the universe? time is really mesured by the earth rotating around OUR sun , so go past OUR sun then where is time? Still stuck on earth. So really there is no time so there is no mesurement, it just is?
Catholic faith is true.Read Fr Corapi, John Paul II Theology of The Body. God is Creator of all universe. BUT God is also our Saviour.Very important difference!He created us without asking us, BUT He wants to ask everybody:"Do you want me to take you to Heaven?".The point is you must give an answer,you can't avoid to give the answer. Your freedom is to make the choice:Yes or No.In moment of your death you will have to make your mind for eternity.Doitnow!Now No abortion.NowNoHell.Usereason,faith
What i dont quite understand is that assuming what you say is true, what do scientists accomplish by keeping it a secret? I dont understand the reasoning
nobody knows how old the universe really is. If you think about how vast and big the universe really is what the bleep do we really know? I think we don't know shit. We always theorize something but that is all it really is just a theory. Until they build a time machine go back in time and get some sufficient data I'll just enjoy and bask in the mysterious.
The universe isn't roughly 14 billion years old, it's AT LEAST 14 billion years old. We can't see beyond that because of the "event horizon"; we already know that, it's no secret.
mannyindaclub 1 week ago
If a galaxy that is older than the age of 13.7 billion years means we can't see it, then how can we see those stars he was talking about at the beginning that are much older? He kind of made his explanation turn on itself.
Chaaazz2008 1 week ago
@Chaaazz2008 Stars lie on both sides of the horizon, like the recently discovered quasar that is too young to have evolved that far.
ProfMichaelson 1 week ago
@ProfMichaelson Don't galaxies lie on both sides? Honestly I don't know. Just curious.
Chaaazz2008 1 week ago
@Chaaazz2008 Yes.
ProfMichaelson 1 week ago
I cant find this issue at the website you listed in the description. They only list 2011 issues.
RandallLord 1 week ago
@RandallLord They surely have a button someplace for back issues, although you might have to order them.
ProfMichaelson 1 week ago
Hmm, I like your thinking! But I shall remain a skeptic, as I am about most logical things. I am no astronomer (or at least not yet!) so I shall leave an intelligent conclusion to an intelligent person.
RyanB747 1 week ago
@RyanB747 You sound intelligent to us.
ProfMichaelson 1 week ago
@ProfMichaelson Haha, thank you for your compliment! But I'm not intelligent, just logical :)
RyanB747 1 week ago
Actually, an Event Horizon is the point of a black hole at which nothing escapes, not even light. Stupid people I can abide. Stupid people trying to talk as if they know of something they do not, I can do nothing but loath.
tomgrazer 2 weeks ago 2
What he means to say is Particle Horizon.
tomgrazer 2 weeks ago
@tomgrazer For black holes, the event horizon is a surface (not a point) that contains all the entropy. This gives rise to a hot stretched horizon due to Hawking radiation that exists only in accelerating frames (not in free fall). The term "event horizon" also means more generally that which is beyond detection in principle and independent of technology. Loath thyself.
ProfMichaelson 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wake up the truth is here!
Inspirational 001
Thank you
Karma Kid
Edelinquent 2 weeks ago
"space" can expand faster than light... I understand that is the basis of the "inflationary" model of the big bang theory.
abrahm714 3 weeks ago
lol all bullshit we will never know age of universe xD
matkex7 3 weeks ago
1:01
I would like to live in the galaxy that has speed after tea time. DAMN YOU ASTRONOMY! WHY DO YOU KEEP SECRETS ABOUT ALL THE AWESOME GALAXIES?
jaredkruger 3 weeks ago
I Smell Flawed Logic...
randy95023 3 weeks ago
still we have more to know just keep guessing.
Iberedmas 4 weeks ago
Beacause it would be rushing away from us "faster than the speed of light"
While I DO believe we will find ways of going faster than light or merely changing the speed of light like in futurama lol.
You just proved to me the falsity of what you just said there.
NOTHING is faster than light. Although things can find ways of getting around "travel" that can mimic faster than light.
Vasarto 4 weeks ago
"astronomers don't want you to know"
REALLY?
scientists all compete with other scientists; this leaves little room for conspiracy.
also it is an insult to suggest that astronomers are hiding a fact, when it is their entire life and career to unearth new facts.
ecclnve 1 month ago 3
@ecclnve In 2011 the Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded to Dan Schechtman for his discovery of quasicrystals. In 1982 when this discovery was made, it was "known" that there could be no such thing. As Linus Pauling famously remarked, "There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasiscientists." Schectman was even asked to resign from his professional society. This is the rule not the exception. If you want to know why, watch the movie "Dark Matter" starring Aidan Quinn.
ProfMichaelson 1 month ago
@ProfMichaelson
That is anecdotal evidence? it is not sufficient.
ecclnve 1 month ago
@ecclnve In 2011 the Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded to Dan Schechtman for his discovery of quasicrystals. In 1982 when this discovery was made it was "known" that there could be no such thing. As Linus Pauling famously remarked, "There is no such thing as quasicrystals, only quasiscientists." Schechtman was even asked to resign from his professional society. This is the rule not the exception. If you want to know why, watch the movie "Dark Matter" starring Aidan Quinn.
ProfMichaelson 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
The most precise estimate of the universe's age is 13.72±0.12 billion years old, based on observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation.Independent estimates (based on measurements such as radioactive dating) agree at 13–15 billion years
devious657 3 weeks ago
The universe has not been the same at all times in its history; for example, the relative populations of quasars and galaxies have changed and space itself appears to have expanded. This expansion accounts for how Earth-bound scientists can observe the light from a galaxy 30 billion light years away, even if that light has traveled for only 13 billion years; the very space between them has expanded
devious657 3 weeks ago
Yeah, this has been sorted out for some time. It involved assumptions that are now known to have been incorrect.
MrMZaccone 1 month ago
Can we stop the religion crap?
MrTreylynch 1 month ago
I don't even know math very well, and I'm pretty fucking sure that your observing light moving away from you is backwards.
SchizoManatee 1 month ago
@SchizoManatee Its the source that's moving away causing the light to be redshifted when it reaches us.
ProfMichaelson 1 month ago
@ProfMichaelson Is there some form of compensation that occurs if you choose to measure both redshift and blueshift?
SchizoManatee 1 month ago
Of course, if it turns out that neutrinos indeed are the fastest buggers out there, and when we've determined their speed, we will probably be able to flush a lot of what we know down the drain... imagine that kind of clogging... but seriously, we can't even begin to imagine what would that mean potentially.
WardahTheBlaqQ 1 month ago
thanks Prof, mind blowing. 8p
TingalpaAlpaca 2 months ago
What is really amazing for most of scientists universe is what they see. there is big part of the universe is not visible to them because endless darkness or is it. It seems to me current scientists they are going through dark ages of human kind when earth was flat for then. They don't realize if we reach the end whatever they consider that they will see their is no end to it is that simple.
Levon9404 2 months ago
open your minds. we are taught what to think. our bogus history books should be the first clue. everyone is an expert at what they think they know and eventually that turns out to be wrong too. who really knows? we are merely humans living a short life. but i do like your arguments and factual statements. haha. it just reafirms my suspicions of how ignorant intelligence really is. thank you again.
joemfk1 2 months ago
or the earth is not very old say 3000 years old and God created it with intelligent design
Offdaheez76 2 months ago
@Offdaheez76 Except the Earth has geological features that are 4 billion years old. And not so intelligent the design if you know about all the flaws in the human body, which is why men get inguinal hernias, women get bladder infections, and everyone gets back aches.
ProfMichaelson 2 months ago 5
@ProfMichaelson but we were made in gods image!!
sniped101 2 months ago
@ProfMichaelson
Thats like saying machines that break down or develop problems or defects must not have an intelligent designer.
MoeRocco75 2 months ago
@MoeRocco75 no, because the disigner of those machines is not onmipotent. your statement is only true if 1. both us and god are omnipotent or 2. neither of us are, both of which are unacceptable for theists.
rietveen26 2 months ago
@ProfMichaelson while that's true and I'm not here to troll you with relgion, I will point out that in the bible, adam and eve were cursed for disobeying god and he said, from this day you will die and you will experience pain in childbirth and then god cast them out of the garden of eden. basically man was perfect, but we stuffed up and god rendered us imperfect. and on the other hand, nothing wouth exist without imperfection, without inperfection, gavity would not have created the planets.
laurence265 2 months ago
@ProfMichaelson you get back aches from your head getting to big lol
jrich90121 1 month ago
@Offdaheez76
& Dibosaurs bones were KFC's of ancient people!
colmonhs 2 months ago
@Offdaheez76 BAHAHA
rietveen26 2 months ago
@Offdaheez76 or maybe Allah made it?
ocerg1111 1 month ago
You really need to take a few courses in physics. This is why a little knowledge is said to be a "dangerous thing". You haven't the first clue what you're talking about, yet you're trying to pass this bullshit off as "information".
gsmonks 2 months ago
@gsmonks As a matter of fact, before I retried I taught courses in physics. Some of my post-docs have gone on to distinguished careers. In a decade or so when astronomers have discovered even more active galaxies that are impossibly young, you'll understand that the universe must be older than you thought. But you'll never know why because you were taught what to think instead of how to think.
ProfMichaelson 2 months ago 8
It's difficult to respond to this video without knowing where you get the idea that there are stars of known age greater than 13.7 billion years; the abstract of the paper you partially cite does not say. However, the abstract itself contains (at least) two factual errors: 13.7 billion years is not arrived at by naive inversion of the Hubble constant, because the expansion rate is not constant. And there *is* observational evidence that gravity slowed the early expansion. The rest is pap.
pseudorandomly 2 months ago
@pseudorandomly That's right, the radial motion is not and never was uniform. Consequently, instantaneous distance takes the form of ds = 0.5at^2 (not vt) and instantaneous speed is dv = at. By direct substitution the Hubble constant becomes H = 2/t. But if you use 13.7 billion years for t and the best value for H, then you get H = 1/t. WHich is it? Mathematical self-consistency is not pap. And we just recently discovered a quasar with such a large Z that it shouldn't have had time to develop
ProfMichaelson 2 months ago
@ProfMichaelson
There's no mathematical inconsistency here. The H=1/t formula assumes the expansion speed has been constant over the lifetime of the Universe. The s=at^2/2 formula assumes the *acceleration* has been constant over the lifetime of the Universe. These are two completely different and incompatible assumptions. If a train drives a mile down a track at a constant speed, that will take a different amount of time than if it starts from zero and accelerates constantly for one mile.
pseudorandomly 2 months ago
@pseudorandomly The H = 1/t only assumes that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Use that value for t and used the measured Hubble constant and it only take a little algebra to get H = 1/t. The assumption of constant acceleration is an idealization to make the problem easy. Do you know about pertubation theory? A common whimsical explanation: In order to heat a pot of water, a physicist will put it on the floor first and then move it to the stove because he knows how to do that.
ProfMichaelson 2 months ago
@ProfMichaelson
H=1/t does not assume the Universe is 13.7 Gy old; rather, t=1/H computes the Hubble time, which is the age of the Universe calculated assuming the current value of Hubble's constant (H-nought) is unchanged back to the beginning of the Universe (i. e., acceleration = 0). We *measure* H-nought and *calculate* t from that. Your own video says this at 0:39. You don't need algebra to get H=1/t; Hubble's constant is *defined* to have units of inverse seconds.
pseudorandomly 2 months ago
@pseudorandomly You're missing the logic. First, ASSUME that t = 13.7 Gyr. Then you can DERIVE H = 1/t using the measured value of H. This has to be wrong because it implies uniform radial velocity. So, you can either throw out the measured value of H in order to preserve the assumption that t = 13.7 Gyr (which is religion) or you can reject the hypothesis that t = 13.7 Gyr assumption based on the experimental counter-example (which is science).
ProfMichaelson 2 months ago
@ProfMichaelson
No. You have ahold of the stick at the wrong end. It is true that the Hubble time calculated from 1/H assumes uniform radial velocity. That assumption is KNOWN TO BE INCORRECT. The point you're missing is that the value of the Hubble constant is only valid *now*. In the past, the value of the Hubble constant was DIFFERENT because the speed of expansion was different. H=1/t is valid no matter what the value of the Hubble constant is; you don't assume a time and derive it.
pseudorandomly 2 months ago
@pseudorandomly I think you're talking about H0 in v = sH0 where s is the proper distance to a galaxy. This changes over time unlike the comoving distance. The reciprocal of H0 is the Hubble time, not the age of the universe.
ProfMichaelson 2 months ago
@ProfMichaelson
Bingo! Now you've got it! Inverting the Hubble Constant yields the Hubble time. Now we can start working on the fact that (at^2)/2 is only valid for *constant* acceleration, which is patently not the case when dealing with the expansion of the Universe. Then we'll finally have licked your apples and oranges argument. I'm sorry if I seem a bit roundabout; you have so many misconceptions that it's difficult to know how to efficiently dispel them in a few hundred characters.
pseudorandomly 2 months ago
@pseudorandomly So you don't want to talk about H rather than H0, or aging as opposed to the limits of observation, or the fact that over a long period of time the mean acceleration is a good approximation for a popular video that should avoid differential equations. Find out what happens to the stretched horizon when an astronaut jumps out of a spaceship orbiting a black hole. No superpositioned states, no reversibility.
ProfMichaelson 2 months ago
@ProfMichaelson
I've already mentioned that H-nought is the current value of the Hubble Constant, and that the Hubble Constant varies with the age of the Universe. The stuff you just wrote about black holes is a complete non sequitur, meaningless in the context of this discussion.
pseudorandomly 2 months ago
@ProfMichaelson
Here's what you're doing. Leave Hubble's Constant out of this. d = vt (distance = velocity x time). d = (at^2)/2 (where a is acceleration). So vt = (at^2)/2, yielding 2v = at. But wait! v = at, so we have 2at = at or 2 = 1. Is all of the physics of motion broken? No, what's happened is that d = vt is valid for unaccelerated motion, but we equated it to a value for accelerated motion. That's where your factor of 2 comes from.
pseudorandomly 2 months ago
@pseudorandomly Sorry about the black hole, I was trying to make an analogy with entropy, which has a lot to do with ageing. But you're right, let's keep it simple. By definition dx/dt = f' ' (t) = H0s. But f(t) has to be non-linear or you get uniform velocity meaning you need t^k, k>1. The way you got H0 = 1/t was by differentiating. More generally it is k/t where k is the power of t and k>1 so that f(t) can be non-linear and the velocity non-uniform.
ProfMichaelson 2 months ago
@ProfMichaelson ProfMichaelson, very interesting video. I am really interested in the high redshift quasar that was recently discovered. Can you tell me how I can google it? Thanks again...
genogeno1234 2 months ago
@genogeno1234 Science News had a pretty good illustrated description and is available online. Also some sites like NASA and Starwalk had it.
ProfMichaelson 2 months ago
v=Hs is the equation for the expansion of space? wtf when is nasa going to update? we are now on d=Vd
l1nkie 2 months ago
@l1nkie
Good one :). And very soon it's gonna be bLu=ray time :)
WardahTheBlaqQ 1 month ago
They also speculate that the universe is NOW 90 million light years across end to end. This shows that it's ALL "speculation". With no REAL answers.
bheadh 2 months ago
@bheadh
The current ideas on the size of the Universe are based on rather more than mere speculation. But I fail to see why speculation on one single point immediately demonstrates that it's *all* speculation. For instance, that the Universe is expanding and has a finite age is not at all based on speculation.
pseudorandomly 2 months ago
@pseudorandomly There are just as many leading scientists who claim that the universe is eternal and doesn't have boundaries. So, I see, through these differences of opinion that this truly is "speculation". After all, no-one in reality, really knows the answers. They'll make up ANY "theory" just to deny the existence that a "Higher Power" is responsible for everything we see. We "see" less than 1% of the universe, yet we "think" we know it all about all of it, how it started, how it willend etc
bheadh 2 months ago
@bheadh You're right, science doesn't offer enough evidence for it's claims, lets all turn to religion which is known for providing evidence for it's claims. There is so much we don't understand about the universe, that there must be a higher power. We should have given up on trying to figure out the universe thousands of years ago when we attributed weather storms, earthquakes and the rising of the sun to the Gods, things would be much better now.
musk02000 1 month ago
@musk02000 Maybe it would've been better for you that way, not me. I don't think science and religion are exclusive, like you. In fact the person that came up with the theory of the big bang was a Catholic priest from Belgium (LeMaitre). He didn't have a problem with science, because he was a scientist. Science is all about Hypothesis, experiment, conclusion. It can't answer what it doesn't know. So if it doesn't know what happened, it has more experimenting to do before making claims, not anwer
bheadh 1 month ago
@musk02000 Amen to that. Science is the enemy of religion. There has always been unanswered questions since man has been able to think of those questions, and religion provides false answers to those questions, which is counterproductive to science, because science is the constant pursuit of the answers to those questions. Religion slows down the progress of man kind. Science speeds it up. When you look at history, that is easily verifiable. The Spanish Inquisition as one extreme example.
FlargidyTV 1 month ago
i can accept is as fact, but space expanding faster than the speed of light ? O.O
speed of light being 7 times around the earth in 1 second. how does that affect the doppler shift and is that not accurate as well. i apologize but i am only recently aware of my SQ average (+13) minimum being -17 and max being +50. By the way, does dark matter play a role in this expansion of space.
RiaRadioFMHD773 3 months ago
@RiaRadioFMHD773 We only think space expanded faster trhan light for an instant after the Big Bang. Dark matter has nothing to do with the expansion of the cosmos except for slowing down the acceleration. Halos of dark matter are what keep the outer stars in galaxies from flying off.
ProfMichaelson 3 months ago
It is not about the then or the now, we are in a fish boll imagining about what is there, connected with it, part of it, travelling along. We humans tend to think only about ourself's in this journey. Talking about Evolution like it ever stops or it was a time called Evolution is absolutely empiric - you are riding a wave. It flows thrum your body atoms, is pure energy on a molecular level. Is life but not only human.
adyloszonga 3 months ago
That's not exactly a secret, because no one is hiding it. It's just a little known fact.
Kazuma11290 3 months ago
I suggest reading all of the WMAP papers on arxiv (start with Komatsu et al.). My colleague in my office was on the team that discovered that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate (i.e. Nobel prize this year!) and our concordant measures of age indicators are all congruent to an age large than all the content (which was a problem 30 years ago). All the best.
astudyofeverything 3 months ago
@astudyofeverything Better question: I think it ironic that Vera Rubin of all people doesn't believe in dark matter but thinks that the eq. for orbital speed is wrong despite being the same for both Newton and Einstein. But at this point I'm really puzzled by the Earth-fly-by anomaly. It's beginning to sound like Mercury and Vulcan all over again. Do you guys have any thoughts? And thanks for your comment.
ProfMichaelson 3 months ago
Comment removed
astudyofeverything 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't see it as ironic, Einstein didn't believe in black holes even though it followed directly from his equations. I suggest you watch the debate between Prof. Simon White of Max Planck and Pavel Kroupa of Bonn. watch?v=EZF9bPVOsb4&feature=related
astudyofeverything 3 months ago
Please remove this video, it is entirely false. If you're wondering if the is actually true, please read any physics or astronomy paper other than this.
musk02000 3 months ago 12
@musk02000 Obviously, the anonymous experts who served as reviewers of our paper disagree. What you should do is present a valid argument that it's wrong and submit it to a peer reviewed journal. Opinions alone don't count in science, as any atheist should know.
ProfMichaelson 3 months ago
@ProfMichaelson Fine, you can believe this video, or you can believe Nasa. Google "Age of the Universe" the first article is from NASA, which takes your equation into account and still shows the acurate age of the universe at 13.7 billion years
musk02000 3 months ago
@musk02000 Unlike the Pope, NASA doesn't claim to be infallible. How could they when they were so tragically wrong about foam from the solid booster not damaing the shuttle? You need to stop appealing to authority.
ProfMichaelson 3 months ago
@ProfMichaelson I think what you mean to say is that you are a more reliable source of information on the cosmos than NASA. As a fellow professor I would hope that readers of this thread would not find my "appealing to authority" more repugnant than your arrogance.
musk02000 3 months ago
@musk02000 I'm saying EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE: that human authority doesn't count in science because nature doesn't give a hoot what humans think. Not that long ago, we were all certain that the rate of cosmic expansion was slowing due to gravity. The fact that everyone believed it didn't make it true. And now we have no explanation for the 96% of the cosmos that isn't baryonic. But that's what makes science exciting, Mother Nature is always surprising us.
ProfMichaelson 3 months ago
@ProfMichaelson I respect your view on the unknown and I do not want to promote accepting the views of authority only on the basis of authority. I do resent your judgement of me appealing to authority however. I also disagree your presentation of this information as "Astonomy's best kept secret" as if the scientific community were secretive and you have uncovered their lies. As for nature not giving a hoot for what humans think, this does not degrade my arguement anymore than yours.
musk02000 3 months ago
@musk02000 how do you know the universe is 13.7 b years?
sniped101 2 months ago
This would be a valid argument if we were not able to cataloge increasingly dimming galaxies from further and further away. This is bad math and bad science. The redshift calculations from S1a events is clear and difinitive. While the idea could be postulated that a galaxy (in its own frame of realitivity) could move away from us at the speed of light, we would still see the light given off from it. The redshift would be extreme though... Thats like saying a ss jet gives off no sound.
DaBluedude100 3 months ago
@DaBluedude100 So you don't believe x = 0.5at^2? Take the first derivative. The equation states that velocity = acceleration x time, true by definition! The "secret" is that nature agrees even if cosmologists don't. See, for example, the distant quasar ULAS J1120 + 0641.
ProfMichaelson 3 months ago
Dude, we can see images of pre-stellar hydrogen gas that is 13.7 billion years old. That identifies the oldest Universal material that we can see, and its not in the form of stars (its too soon after the big bang for stars to have existed yet). That means the Universe is *not* any older than about 13.7 billion years old.
websnarf 3 months ago
@websnarf How do you explain ULAS J1120 + 0641?
ProfMichaelson 3 months ago
@ProfMichaelson The *starlight* is about 13 billion years old. But the space in the universe is expanding at that same time. So its actual distance from us is *currently* 28.5 billion light years away because of this expansion. UDFj-39546284 is even further away at 31.7 billion light years.
You assumption of straight linear measurement assumes that space remains constant, which is not the case. This is cosmology 101 in the modern era.
websnarf 3 months ago
@websnarf Expanding space doesn't change the speed of the light, it only scales down wavelength and frequency. That's why the CMB is now in the microwave spectrum. If a galaxy is currently 31.7 billion light years away, then it must have been receding for more than 31.7 billion years because it hasn't been moving much faster than light. Not even if muon neutrinos can move slightly faster than light, and the jury is still out on that.
ProfMichaelson 3 months ago
I'm expanding as well but it's from too many pastries, pierogies, root beer and orange Crush.
puffrooster 3 months ago
if light cant escape a blackhole, then space and time can travel faster then fotons within space and time because of the black hole?
or did i say bullshit?
ImmortalUniverse 3 months ago
in english please
phazek2 3 months ago
nobody knows for sure.or maybe?
wksel1 4 months ago
I don't fully agree with the video, however; there is a new space telescope getting ready to be launched by NASA that will ONLY look at starts that are in the ultra violet spectrum because they are so far away and moving a way from us at such a rate their red shift has moved into the UV. So it is true there are stars and galaxies "outside" our "observable" horizon.
Relativisticism 4 months ago
@Relativisticism it is possible but the light travels at a constant speed regaurdless of its distance. Its the space expanding not the light... however a galaxy shifted into the UV spectrum would still only be moving at a small fraction of the speed of light. This video proves nothing but contradiction. As the space between our galaxy and an 'event horizon' galaxy would have to continue to expand at a relative rate greater than the speed of light. Current estimates do not support that.
DaBluedude100 3 months ago
Nonsense, if the universe itself was created, it can also occur anywhere, which means that there can be endless universes, which means that in those universes there can be anything wee can imagine and not imagine, which means that if I imagine that in one of those universes there are aliens who want to come to the sex they will come to that, because if something is infinite all is possible.
krstojevic 4 months ago
who the hell pixels outta a supernova>? get shot
Xxmyarek17xX 4 months ago
It would've made so much more sence if 7 ate pie
NeDeR96 4 months ago
MY BRAIN IS FRIZZLED!
TheDietwawa 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you are a truth seeker, search "Truth Contest" in Google and click on the 1st result, then open The Present and read what it says. Everyone needs to see this. The Present will turn this world right-side up if it reaches enough people. You will see what I mean when you read the first page.
vividDC 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
caluculation is wrong from my instict.
use dimension.too far we see. may be too close we can not see.
thanks.
hebrews11jp 5 months ago
If astronomers didn't want us to know about this, then how come a paper was published on it, and why is there a youtube video. If their idea was to hide this from people, they did an awful job. It is more likely, that no one is trying to hide this from us. And if someone is, then tells us specific names. Don't just say that some unknown group of people who can not be mentioned by name are hiding something.
briksavj 5 months ago
2. cont'd In other words, you cannot calculate an accurate expansion rate of the universe wihout taking into account the speed of the observer (the earth in this case) along with the speed of the galaxy that we are observing. I can't believe this is so poorly presented and has so many views. But there are some very educational demos that don't get nearly as many views. If you want to talk about a conspiracy...how about DUBMING DOWN THE PUBLIC...
luckerkd 5 months ago
2. cont'd we would have no way of measuring the speed of the universe unless we were an observer outside of the universe...but where would that be? In other word how could we observe the universe outside of our own universe and measure it's speed. Nonetheless, if the universe is moving at a constant rate...then everything in the universe would have to be moving at that same constant rate which would kill the equation because velocity of galaxy rushing away from us would be zero. If not, then ...
luckerkd 5 months ago
2. cont'd If you take into accont relativity...then you'll see if the universe is moving at a constant rate, and if everything is part of the universe...then everything is moving at the same rate. So if we observe a galaxy from earth, then if we are both moving at the same speed and in the same direction, then we would measure that the galaxy is not rushing away from us at all and it's velocity would be zero relative to us (on the earth). But then we know that the universe is moving...but...
luckerkd 5 months ago
2. cont'd. Velocity is distance over time...so we could theoretically solve for a time. But we'll find out that this doesn't make sense either.... You're telling us the velocity is constant. but you don't tell us what the value is...more confusion. Then you're hypothesizing that the universe moves at constant rate...then you're making an assumption that all galaxies move at a constant rate. That's fine but what are these rates? Also, you are not taking into account relativistic speeds here...
luckerkd 5 months ago
2. The first thing that you do is solve for the age of the universe using Hubble's equation. You skip a few steps here that makes the problem difficut to understand. First of all... you solve for T using Hubble's equation...but T is not a variable in Hubble's equation (as you have presented it here). The variables that you have presented here are V(velocity of galaxy rushing away from us -> earth?), s(distance of that galaxy ->from us? -> earth?), and H(Hubble's constant).
luckerkd 5 months ago
This is interesting until you think about it ... then you realize that ProfMichaelson has made way too many assumptions. I'll take the time to explain why can understand the errors in logical reasoning that are abundant in this presentation. 1. Your hypothesis is that there are stars older than the age of the universe. Instead of verifiying this by observation, you are using logical reasoning and deduction. OK...I'll go with this...now let's check out your reasoning...
luckerkd 5 months ago
beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!wrong!
the universe is 12 days old.A 1000 years is a day to the Lord( god yhwh).
the stars were created on the third day.genesis1:14
and gods son yashua ,jesus.is coming soon.no more lies or fantasys.repent.
jesus loves you.
and man was already distroyed once.and it is again the days of noe!
wiewayflats 5 months ago
why people post such long comments on space documentaries? Ill Put one to: Proffesor can u talk in understandable english? ;)
DienesOly 5 months ago
Why do we see older stars and galaxys? Two reasons: the Black Hole at the center of the Universe periodically breathes, so mini-creations ensue, only to be swamped with plasma during the next cycle. These account for the "bumps" in the early bumpy nature of the Plasma-scape. Second reason: like our sun is part of the Sagitarius Galaxy, now raped by the Milky Way as the Sagitarius arm, so too were early sister Universes consumed by our own. Plasma Theory DEMANDS there be neighboring Universes
SuperZekethefreak 5 months ago
The problem I have with this is we have detected our Universe has a slight rotation, indicating that it is a closed system in a state of equilibrium. The search for Dark Matter/Energy is rewarding in many ways, but redundant. Why Red Shift? Because light organizes itself into a series of regularly manifesting concave lenses. The further away we look, the faster those objects appear to be moving away from us. It's an illusion! Our Universe looks like a Galaxy, we see filamentary arms even!
SuperZekethefreak 5 months ago
dude noone undesrtands that shit, not even einstein would understand the shit what you are talking about
ThePeanuts1000 6 months ago
He seems to be neglecting the fact that because the edge of the observable universe is only as far away as the universe is old that when we look at that edge we see the universe when it was in its infancy. In other words, we do see objects that are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. We just see them when they were much younger.
MultiPaulinator 6 months ago
hmm, it put an extra dash in :-(
should be...
youtube-dot-com-slash...
watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0&playnext=1&list=PL35A32C6E877FEAC3
scowi3 6 months ago
I find the idea of an infinite universe to be much more believable. I reckon the universe isnt expanding at all.
I recommend people watch this documentary...
youtube-dot-com-slash-watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0&playnext=1&list=PL35A32C6E877FEAC3
scowi3 6 months ago
This kind of thing bugs me a whole lot. Like so many of these arguments do. I'm not about to argue with your math. It's all of the assumptions that go along with it that I simply cannot resolve. Which really leaves me nowhere. I didn't buy the 13.6by argument, and doubling it doesn't do a thing to make it any more believable. I still think they have absolutely no idea, and probably never will.
950horsepower 6 months ago
Good thing they're hidding this from us. Think of the panic this would cause! Someone might drop a cheezy doodle.
gbart57 6 months ago
None of this contradicts known science.
Just another conspiracy theorist.
Ah youtube.
Ozzyman200 7 months ago
speed of light doesn't add or subtract- is constant, it doesn't matter how fast object is moving, if object is moving faster than a speed of light it doesnt mean that light is going to move faster than a speed of light, or is going to go backwards if emmission is in direction opposite than moving object and follow object that is emitting this light. C-is constant, measurement is the real problem.
etomish 7 months ago 10
There is a signifigant flaw in this simple calcualation. The acceleration of space "a" is assumed to be constant in time. This is not supported and even contradicted by current observations. This is a problem mathematically as well since v=Hs gives a(t)=C*H^2*e^(Ht) where C is a constant to be determined empirically but that matters not tothe math. This is a function that changes value in time so long as H is not zero. I didn't even have to consult a book to debunk it. You are mistaken sir.
wkrepelin 7 months ago
Our time b4 you start using time equations! is only this way on our planet! so using any time government & saying its true is a lie! no other planet in our system has our time! we are stuck at 528hz on this planet & only we are stuck in this time, (the people who stole our true knowledge created the calender we use which is wrong!!! there should be 13 months of 28 days & we should be using the 13th star isgn also like they did before we were enslaved!) I am not stupid sir! a realist.
ThePianaman 7 months ago
@ThePianaman I am very concerned about you given your responses. I think you should consider talking to someone (professionally) and strongly recommend that you do. I hope that you are just exaggerating and don't really believe this stuff because it is indicative of a psychological break with reality. Talk to your family and see if someone is wiling to get involved. Contact me if you want to.
wkrepelin 7 months ago
Just as there has been forbidden archeology there is forbidded astronomy. As long as the majority of the scientists can not get their heads around a finding the findings are unbelievable -- not true. Galileo too was almost excommunicated by the Church in his time.
Nick50115 7 months ago
Can you please explain your use of Newton's kinematic equations when you are dealing with relativistic velocities with the space that's expanding at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. That is, the space closer to the event horizon than more local regions. Also, can you give examples in these distant regions of space stars that are only luminous in the infrared spectrum or lower due to doppler shift?
wkrepelin 7 months ago
@wkrepelin I wanted to keep it simple because superluminal inflation only occurred very briefly after the singular event, at least in the Standard Lambda CDM model. The greatest example of how the expansion of space red shifted light is the CMB.
ProfMichaelson 7 months ago
@ProfMichaelson Not to be rude but that doesn't answer either of my questions. Furthermore you seem to me to be dodging the question. Other topics can wait for discussion. Please answer my comment directly. Again, 1 why no relativity? 2. Where are the outer regions of stars that are redshifted out of the visible spectrum? That is two questions and I would like two answers. If you choose to dodge the question again then we can just go our separate ways. Your hypothesis must stand under scrutiny!
wkrepelin 7 months ago
@wkrepelin Also, if there would be no star formation in those regions? why? Are you claiming that the superluminal inflation early in the universe was just much greater than thought currently and causally disconnected us from large tracts of space? Would this somehow give the same appearance ans the CMB? Please support with more. Is all the info in your paper? Or can you give me the conditions to plug into the Friedmann equation and I'll crunch it. I just want something better than the video.
wkrepelin 7 months ago
@wkrepelin During the long history of the universe, it was not accelerating at a relativistic speed, except, as I said, momentarily during inflation. The point I was trying to make about the CMB is that the cosmos was opaque at earlier times. The Z required to shift a star's entire spectrum into the IR depends on its spectrum and we haven't discovered many Zs that would shift gamma rays or even x-rays into the IR. But you're right, the video is intended to be popular and we're limited to 500 ch.
ProfMichaelson 7 months ago
@ProfMichaelson Well, I'd say that's a fair position. While I do find it dubious that you make these claims on youtube before you hypothesis has been accepted by even enough of the scientific community for there to be a "camp" in your favor I do have interest. If you would refer me to more of your work I would like to investigate it's claims for myself and see if I can repeat the calculations etc. I need to work on my cosmology anyway. Let me know if you would help me with this.
wkrepelin 7 months ago
@wkrepelin I think the citation is an overlay at the head of the video. Check Physics Essays at aps.org.
ProfMichaelson 7 months ago
Science lies & stops anyone challenging it in any way! look at the measurement problem & observing physics experiments! consciousness becomes part of it! photons act differently when humans are present! we have such limited senses & sight we are useless & finding truth! most books are used to control us! scientists make lots of things up! our pineal gland is the key! science wont even mention it! we are not physical! I found many electrical currents in us 10 years ago! im real! no lies!
ThePianaman 7 months ago
Humans are dumb we were enslaved thousands of years ago! we even drink poison & eat it to keep us unwell. for some unknown reason we have to drink flouride everyday! its in our water! & despite years of writing to government & water companies no reason is ever given! it stops our pineal gland working! we brush our teeth & our advised to to eat toothpaste! doesnt matter when we are drinking gallons of flouride each week! so Prof BE HONEST! if you can. (we eat loads of legal poisons!).
ThePianaman 7 months ago
I would really like easy info that doesnt require me to get a degree in bullshit to understand
gasher70 7 months ago
imo the universe is not expanding its always been the same size its just undulating and is probalry just a big blob of an undefinable shape rather that the classic view of it being a nice big oval with nice exact dimensions ,and the age of the universe is not very relevent until we can fix the problems we have on earth like trying to feed the poor and look after the disabled and stop bombing children,
reksub10 8 months ago
I'm lost, are you saying astronomers keeping this a secret or all the smart guys in the world haven't figured this out yet? serious question
nkzle 8 months ago 3
@nkzle The smart guys have figured it out but most still resist changing the accepted belief. This was also true of dark matter and is generally how science progresses. Seriously.
ProfMichaelson 8 months ago
@ProfMichaelson Ah. I understand now. Well at the very least, the information is officially leaking out slowly but surely through science publications, but hardly on mainstream media. Confirming that the universe is much older than it is would rock many though.
nkzle 8 months ago
@nkzle it would completely ruin their humpty dumpty model of the universe, including cosmic microwave background radiation calculations for "proving" the big bang. It is not that they are keeping anything secret, they are just waiting for retirement.
genogeno1234 7 months ago
People look up the Quran chapter 51 verse 47
smartzazi 8 months ago
@smartzazi or burn it ......oooow....... LOL
1TrExXaNaToR 8 months ago
this isn't a secret it's just a theory -_____-
ProjectZeus 9 months ago
why dont u want to live for ever? there will be an infinite universe to explore ;) u wont stick to the same old things for ever. i wish i could live for ever
twinkstance 9 months ago
I got lost at the equazions!!!!
sexykitten0627 9 months ago
mingling multi big bangs.
jsmythib 9 months ago
@SecretSh0t How come every video I go to has a troll (You) that posts retarded comments?
MyMainMan09 10 months ago
Possible errors in scientific theory do no more to prove the existence of superstitious divine beings any more than they do to prove unicorns and space fairies.
rainmouse 10 months ago
I got here by accident nc sad 99.99% of the people adding a coment here stopped school when te where 16 and started working am suprised the can post a comment.
dont look this videos is you dont know anything about LIFE go play with your stupid videogames noobs
fcking mine workers sientist earn 30x more money than you ordinary guys
SecretSh0t 10 months ago
Or, the universe could be any age--even infinitely old (and infinite in size, because the calculated mass of the universe is calculated using Hubble's constant), but the observable universe would always appear to be finite, giving physics doctoral students woodies thinking about how the universe "has to be" finite, but appears to be unbounded.
MrDogrose 10 months ago
I think you should all go and do some volunteer work, can't you see this thinking game is tearing us apart?
jaykulls 11 months ago
90% of astronomy, astrophysics, and modern theoretical physics is bull shit, plain and smiple. All unprovable bull shit.
BeyondNeptune 11 months ago
you started at v=Hs (1). then you did your physics101 and ended up at at=H1/2at^2 (2). if you were right, and from (2) follows H=2/t, then (1) cannot be true, which is bad, because it would mean, that your assumptions follow from a wrong premise...
(v=Hs is only an aproximation for very close galaxies. You are talking about far-away galaxies. Those two do not match)
accalaurie 11 months ago
Comment removed
accalaurie 11 months ago
Who the fuck cares how old the world or the universe is, its age is totally irrelevant.
hush2088 11 months ago
lolwut
Nazrat84 11 months ago
How do we REALLY know this is how hold the universe is? Maybe all of our carbon dating and math is wrong. Maybe the Earth is only 10,000-6,000 years old? But, hey, who knows.
K97theElite 1 year ago
@K97theElite ha ha. not you anyway mate.
paulblackpb 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check my video EXTRA - TERRESTRIAL MESSAGE.
I HAVE BEEN VISITED & THERE IS AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE GIVEN TO US BY INTELLIGENT BEINGS FROM OTHER WORLDS.
watch?v=QkZYsKypiIc
111AngelTruth 1 year ago
so is there any galaxys rushing towards us? becuase if there all rushing away FROM US, this must mean that THE CREATOR set them into motion from here.
jingram1981 1 year ago
@jingram1981 There are lots of galaxies rushing towards us, including the nearest one Andromeda. But galaxies separated by great distances all rush away from each other, not from a fixed point in space.
ProfMichaelson 1 year ago 8
@ProfMichaelson ok so their is like 30 + - galaxies in our nieghbor hood right and their all seperated by great distance but one is rushing towards us ? have you seen the galaxies from the hubble telescope some of those clusterd galaxies move through each other and their are hundreds of them and only 30 something of ours and and andromeda is moveing towards us? i don't get your answer.
jingram1981 1 year ago
@ProfMichaelson Actually, recent observations have shown there is a biases in the blue/redshifts for different regions of hte Universe. If I remembe right, one set of observations shows there is a slight bias in one direction of all matter we can see. The immediate suggestion for this bias is that their is another Universe next to us and its gravity is tugging on us every so slightly. Other observations have show significant differents of redshift based on the direction of point from Earth.
fcsuper 4 months ago
@fcsuper True. And exciting. If our universe is being linearly pulled by the gravity of another universe, rather than expanding radially, it would shake up cosmology but support Randall's explanation for the weakness of gravity (see "Photos of a 4 dimensional object" on this channel).
ProfMichaelson 4 months ago
How can you messure time in the universe? time is really mesured by the earth rotating around OUR sun , so go past OUR sun then where is time? Still stuck on earth. So really there is no time so there is no mesurement, it just is?
bungit2003 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Catholic faith is true.Read Fr Corapi, John Paul II Theology of The Body. God is Creator of all universe. BUT God is also our Saviour.Very important difference!He created us without asking us, BUT He wants to ask everybody:"Do you want me to take you to Heaven?".The point is you must give an answer,you can't avoid to give the answer. Your freedom is to make the choice:Yes or No.In moment of your death you will have to make your mind for eternity.Doitnow!Now No abortion.NowNoHell.Usereason,faith
akwinata1 1 year ago
What i dont quite understand is that assuming what you say is true, what do scientists accomplish by keeping it a secret? I dont understand the reasoning
roadkill1001 1 year ago
I don't believe much of astronomy anymore and i like to listen to astronomy failures...
Its always giving answers to simple questions wich gets updated by time to time...
(Educational science can kiss my...)
There all "eyewitness" testimonies anyway...
zumobster 1 year ago
nobody knows how old the universe really is. If you think about how vast and big the universe really is what the bleep do we really know? I think we don't know shit. We always theorize something but that is all it really is just a theory. Until they build a time machine go back in time and get some sufficient data I'll just enjoy and bask in the mysterious.
imfreeinfinity 1 year ago